Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArnold et al 23-01-06IN THE MATTER OF A CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE BETWEEN: OPSEU LOCAL 109 -and- FANSHAWE COLLEGE Regarding the Classification of Classification Grievance – Recruitment Officers OPSEU #2021-0209-0022/23/24 BEFORE : Kathleen G. O’Neil, Single Arbitrator For the Union: Joshua Westgate, Grievor Ron Kelly, OPSEU Local 109 Brandy Hamilton, OPSEU Local 109 For the College: Dave Schwartz – Executive Director, Reputation and Brand Management Kasia Magier – Human Resources Consultant, Human Resources Rene Schneider– Employee Relations Consultant, Human Resources A Hearing was held by videoconference on December 12, 2022 1 A W A R D This decision deals with four classification grievances dated March 12, 2021 claiming that the Recruitment Officer position is incorrectly classified, asking that it be reclassified upward two levels from pay band I to pay band K. The union is of the view that the current rating is inadequate to the complexity and importance of the role of the Recruitment Officers, as reflected in the grievances of each of the current holders of the position, Kacey German, Joshua Westgate, Michelle Vrancic and Gregory Arnold. The employer argues that the job is properly classified, and asks that the grievance be dismissed. The role of the Recruitment Officers The Recruitment Officers work in the Domestic Recruitment Department in Reputation and Brand Management (RBM) and under the larger umbrella of Corporate Strategy and Business Development. The student recruitment team is responsible for the recruitment of domestic students, providing in-person and virtual engagements with prospective students and influencer groups, guidance counsellors, parents and career centres. This involves responding to inquiries and doing outreach in the form of events, campus tours and presentations in order to highlight all of Fanshawe's offerings based on the needs of the specific audience. The classification system Classification grievances such as the four here in issue are decided through the application of the support staff classification plan. Its provisions are set out in the CAAT Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (referred to below simply as “the Manual”), a negotiated document in place since 2007. Under this system, each job has a Position Description Form (referred to below as the PDF), which describes the duties to be rated according to the job evaluation system. The system is organized around factors, aimed at determining the relative worth of positions for compensation purposes. It is basic to the system that it is the position which is being evaluated, not the individual who holds the job. This means that extra points are not given because the incumbent does a very good job; it is the duties and responsibilities of the position that are rated, regardless of the experience or performance of the person in the job. Raters are required to evaluate on the “best fit”, rather than on the basis of a single word or phrase within a factor’s definition. In order to assist with providing consistent ratings throughout the system, the Manual includes factor-specific “Notes to Raters” and definitions which must be adhered to as they provide directions for interpreting a factor and its levels. My job as an arbitrator is to consider the arguments of the parties in applying the plan to 2 the factors in dispute, in order to resolve the parties’ dispute over the correct rating. In the words of Article 18. 5.5.1 of the collective agreement, I am to determine whether the grievors’ jobs are “properly evaluated” pursuant to the Manual. The PDF The union argues for the addition of content to the Position Description Form (PDF), which will be dealt with together with the relevant factors below. In resolving disagreements about the PDF, Article 18.5.5.1 of the collective agreement restricts my role to “determining whether the grievor’s PDF accurately reflects his/her assigned job content” It is appropriate to emphasize that the PDF is meant to be a concise description of the job assigned by the employer, so that the PDF will generally not be found to be inaccurate unless there are significant duties missing from the PDF to the extent that it does not accurately describe the job for evaluation purposes. Whether or not I am persuaded that the PDF reflects the actually assigned job content, the suggested additions to the PDF are taken as submissions as to duties of the job that the incumbents wish to highlight. Factors In Dispute The seven factors still in dispute will be discussed in turn. They are: i. Guiding/advising others ii. Independence of Action iii Communication iv. Physical effort v. Working environment i. Guiding/advising others The college has awarded a Level 3, while the union is asking for Level 4. The factor descriptions for those levels are as follows: 3. Advise others to enable them to perform their day-to-day activities. 4. Guide/advise others with ongoing involvement in their progress. The main difference between the parties for this factor relates to whether or not the Recruitment officers are assigned to have ongoing involvement in their clients’ progress. The manual states that 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 participant. 3 The dispute over the element of ongoing involvement is reflected in the union’s position concerning the PDF. In the union’s view, dealing with student services staff and student ambassadors should be in the PDF as ongoing involvement under this factor. The employer responds that due to the pandemic, there were no student ambassadors in 2021, when the grievance was filed, and that the Recruitment Officers are no longer assigned to have the involvement they may have had in earlier years. The manager, rather than the Recruitment Officers. is responsible for hiring student ambassadors, directing, scheduling them and giving performance feedback. In the employer’s view, the role of the Recruitment Officers is limited to being helpful, such as in answering their questions as needed. The union does not see it as fair that the assessment should be done on the basis of a changed situation when the Recruitment Officers did a much wider range of duties in respect of the Student Ambassadors in previous years, and the situation could change back after the decision is rendered. Nonetheless, my jurisdiction is grounded in the grievance, which was filed in 2021, so it is appropriate to consider the situation at that time. Further, it is within management’s rights to change the nature of the assignment to the Recruitment Officers, which it appears they did, during the pandemic when there was an interruption to the student ambassador program in its earlier form. Thus, on the material before me, I do not find that it is inaccurate that the student ambassadors or other student support staff are not mentioned in the Recruitment Officers’ PDF. The union sees level four as a better fit for this factor because the Recruitment Officers are expected to be involved over time, following up as needed to help the individual go from interest to application to the College. The union acknowledges that they are not involved after the point of application, but sees the involvement from identifying a lead through to the actual application, using sales and other tactics they have been trained in, as ongoing involvement throughout the process up to and including applying to the college. By contrast, the employer sees the obligation of the Recruitment Officers to follow up on leads, and nurture the relationship with the goal of influencing prospective students to apply as advisory in nature and therefore a good fit at level three. The employer underlines that the Recruitment Officers are not accountable for any ongoing skill development; for whether an individual applies or not, or the course or program they enroll in. In the employer’s view, what keeps this job from being a good fit at Level 4 is the absence of any ongoing contribution to skill development. Thus, the central disagreement is whether the process of engaging with prospective students and their advisors is better described as the use of expertise to assist others in completing their tasks 4 [Level 3] or assistance to less experienced others with ongoing involvement with active contribution to skill development, in light of language of the factor descriptions and the Notes to Raters. I accept the union’s submission that carrying out the responsibilities of the job to follow up on leads, inviting prospective students to campus, conducting tours, answering their questions and guiding them through the application process, goes beyond a singular tactic or transaction, and can be described as ongoing involvement with a process. Nonetheless, I am persuaded that level 3 is a better fit in that the notes to raters for Level 4 makes it clear that the focus at that level is on ongoing skill development. I also accept that the effect of the advice of the Recruitment Officers on the prospective students, their advisors and guidance counsellors may have an effect on their skill level in navigating the application process. Nonetheless, I am not persuaded that skill development is the best description of the focus of the Recruitment Officers’ function. I find the description found in the notes to raters dealing with Level 3 a closer fit. The Recruitment Officers have expertise in “all things Fanshawe” which they use to assist others in completing the task either of applying to Fanshawe, or in the case of relatives or guidance counsellors, in the task of advising prospective students about what Fanshawe has to offer. Also, at that level, there is no responsibility for how those advised subsequently complete their tasks, which I am convinced is an accurate description of the assigned duties of the Recruitment Officers in that respect. In sum, having carefully considered the material before me, it is my view that Level 3 is the best fit for this factor so that the employer's rating for this factor is confirmed. ii. Independence of Action The employer has rated this factor at Level 3, while the union asks for Level 5. The factor descriptions for that range of rating levels 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 industry practices and/or departmental policies. 5. Position duties are completed according to broad goals or objectives. Decisions are made using College policies. With reference to the PDF, the union requested that some reference to international 5 recruitment be added, as the Recruitment Officers do have some exposure to international students, while the employer’s materials refer only to domestic students. In discussion at the hearing, it became clear that there may be international students who come into contact with the Recruitment Officers, but that the expectation is that they be referred on to staff who specialize in international students. I am convinced that the PDF is not inaccurate in this respect. I find that this aspect of the Recruitment Officers’ work is adequately covered by the general statements throughout their PDF to the effect that they are to engage with prospective students and influencers to provide recruitment information. They are not to ignore any international students with whom they engage, but they are not primarily responsible for them, or expected to have an expertise in issues related to international students. Rather, the recruitment information they provide would appropriately include referring them on to the dedicated team with specific responsibilities for international students. To support a rating for Independence of Action at Level 5, the union relies on wording recently added to the Recruitment Officers’ PDF, which reads as follows: Daily work is performed independently in consultation with external stakeholders to provide options for service based on their specific needs while adhering to college policies. As an indication that Level 5 is a better fit than either Level 4 which references “departmental policies”, or level 3, which is based on “general guidelines”, the union notes that the only level that refers to “College Policies” in the Manual is Level 5. The many policies applicable to the position are listed in the union’s brief, from accommodation of students with disabilities through to the “Stay Safe” app. Further, the union relies on directives from management such as to “place Fanshawe at the top of the College system” as the type of broad goal referred to in the factor description at Level 5. The union and the Recruitment Officers maintain that the language of the Notes to Raters applicable to Level 5, describes their position accurately, i.e.: The only parameters or constraints that are in place to guide the position’s decision- making are College policies. The position has autonomy to act within these boundaries and would only need to consult with the supervisor (or others) on issues that were outside these parameters. The union emphasizes that the Recruitment Officers are responsible for their own action plans within their territory and have the autonomy to execute their own plan. They do not accept that the notes to Raters at Level 3 is a good fit when it says “specific results or objectives that must be accomplisher are pre-determined by others.” 6 As to Level 4, which lies between the College’s rating and the union’s claim, the union accepts that industry practices are involved, including sales methodology and the Salesforce Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system used to promote applications to the college. Nonetheless, the union maintains that the level of autonomy of the recruitment officers goes beyond Level 4, making level 5 a better fit. The employer counters the union’s submissions, saying that there are many other constraints on the autonomy of the Recruitment Officers beyond college policies, most of which apply to all employees at the college, regardless of their classification, in any event. The employer acknowledges that the Recruitment Officers manage their assigned territory, which consists of high schools, career centres, and community groups. However, the employer emphasizes that this work is documented and guided by the Student Recruitment Plan, which each of them creates in consultation with their leader/manager, for an assigned territory, and is then subject to managerial approval. The plan itself is structured using previous years’ data and experience working within the territory, and the plans are intended to be fairly consistent among the Recruitment Officers. Specific results or objectives that must be accomplished are pre- determined by the leader. For example, a Recruitment Officer must visit all of their priority accounts once in the fall and once in the spring. Their leader can change the Recruitment Officer‘s plans, in response to evolving needs, or to meet business requirements. The leader sets expectations, targets, and areas of focus. There are check-in’s with management, intended to be weekly, as well as both individual and team meetings, supplemented by tracking through the sales force management system, to which the Recruitment Officers enter and extract data to assist them in their work. It is very clear from the material before me that College policies are not the only parameters or constraints on the work of the Recruitment Officers. The PDF specifically mentions regular discussions with the manager, written reports to management, as well as a required review of the recruitment plan. There are results and objectives pre-determined by management, such as the frequency of visits to schools and other assigned “accounts” in the Recruitment Officer’s portfolio. Consultation with others, past practice, checks and balances are very much part of their work. The evidence about the sales training further reinforces the idea that guidance from management and other sources is much more present than just an obligation to follow college policies. One example was that the training indicated that management wanted contact data from each face-to- face interaction with prospective students, followed by getting them to come to a tour or open house, leading to the goal of a confirmed application to study at Fanshawe. Sales training has 7 also provided strategies and techniques to overcome resistance to that sequence. Thus, I find that Level 5 is not a good fit for this position. As to Level 4, the union relies on the implementation of a new Customer Relationship Management system (Salesforce) intended to ensure the Recruitment Officers have standard resources to convert prospective students to applicants as an industry practice which would warrant a rating at Level 4. The training in sales methodology and the use of Salesforce system can credibly be referred to as a process used by practitioners to maintain standards, and thus the union’s reliance on them for level 4 has some attraction. Nonetheless, I do not find Level 4 to be the best fit. First of all, the Manual’s definition of the term “industry practices” refers to technical or theoretical methods and/or processes generally agreed upon and used by practitioners to maintain quality across a range of organizations and settings. I am not persuaded that the sales methodologies in which the Recruitment Officers have been trained are best described as technical or theoretical, or that it has been shown to be generally agreed on and aimed at quality control, such as standards of practice for trades or professions would be. I find them to fit much more comfortably with the notion of general processes and guidelines, elements of the factor definition at Level 3. Further, the Note to Raters at Level 4 says 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 is very clear from the material before me as discussed at the hearing, that there are many other constraints, as noted above. For instance, the range of autonomy as described in the employer’s brief was not shown to be inaccurate. This included comments to the effect that Recruitment Officers have the autonomy to arrange their schedule, school visits, and travel in order to meet the expectations of the role, in conjunction with the recruitment plan, and general guidelines. However, management may cancel planned visits where a school has previously demonstrated low application rates. As well, the union’s submissions did not refute the employer’s assertion that the Recruitment Officers are able to make choices on the processes used in completing the work within the Student Recruitment Plan, but that anything that falls outside of this pre-approved plan would require leadership approval. I note that an experienced employee who has performed the role for years and internalized the processes and guidelines inherent in the role, may be perceived to act much more independently than the above indicates. Nonetheless, I am required to rate the position itself as defined by the PDF and evidence about the structure of the position within the organization, applying the criteria set out in the Manual. 8 For the above reasons, the employer’s rating of the Independence of Action factor at Level 3 is confirmed. iii. Communication For communication, the dispute is between levels 3 and 4. The factor descriptions for these two levels are as follows: 3. Communication involves explaining and/or interpreting information to secure understanding. May involve communicating technical information and advice. 4. Communication involves explaining and/or interpreting information to instruct, train and/or gain the cooperation of others. The Notes to Raters provide the following guidance concerning level 3: "Explain" and "interpretation" in level 3 refers to the need to explain matters by interpreting policy or theory 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. As for Level 4, the Notes to Raters make clear that at this level and above, the assigned communication and interpersonal skills needed are at an extremely high level. Further input for Level 4 is as follows: "Gaining cooperation" refers to the skills needed to possibly having to move others to your point of view and gaining commitment to shared goals. The incumbent works within parameters determined by the department or College and usually there is a preferred outcome or goal. The audience may or may not have divergent views. The union argues that the assigned duties of the Recruitment Officers are aimed at obtaining the “cooperation of others”, including prospective students and guidance counsellors. The union relies on the wording of the PDF which specifies that the Recruitment Officer’s “written and spoken/presentation activities are all geared to persuade and motivate as well as inform.” In the union’s view, this is bolstered by language In the “Analysis and Problem Solving” part of the PDF where it states that the incumbent must respond to questions “with information or advice in an appropriate and persuasive manner designed to educate, enthuse and motivate.” The union’s brief states that Recruitment Officers often enter an environment with disinterested attendees. It is the skillset of the Recruitment Officer to enliven their interest, gain their cooperation and move 9 them to the point of view that they should apply to Fanshawe. Further, Guidance Counsellors at high schools do not have to allow them into their institution to promote the College. Specifically, the Recruitment Officers are expected to gain the cooperation of their audience members to provide their contact information, come for a campus tour, and apply to the college. They are authorised to use incentives to get them to move towards these goals, such as waiving application fees where appropriate. The union underlines that these job duties are performed in the context of competition for applicants among all the Ontario colleges, but those in southwestern Ontario in particular. The union sees this aspect of their role as a better fit with the wording of Level 4 as it goes beyond the criterion of securing understanding at Level 3. Further, the union maintains that the Recruitment Officer provides instruction in a formalized setting, such as clssrooms, auditorums and through informaton sessions/workshops, mentioned at Level 4. In the union’s view these are not casual provisions of information like in an informal conversation, noting that the word “workshop” was recently added to the PDF by the College. By contrast, the College sees level 3 as the better fit, as they see the Recruitment Officers as providing information to showcase Fanshawe, geared toward the specific audience. As described in the notes to raters for Level 3, they must consider the communication level of the audience, whether it be high school students, mature students or guidance counsellors. In the employer’s view, the purpose of the communication is to ensure the information is received and understood by the audience, so they can make an informed choice about post-secondary study. The employer does not accept that they are assigned to instruct, train, and or/gain the cooperation of others. The employer refers to ethical goals, that it is the student’s choice. In the employer’s view, it is the role of the Recruitment Officers to provide as much information as possible so the prospective students can choose the right option for themselves among the many available. The College accepts that the Recruitment Officers are relationship building, but do not see this as fitting at level 4. Further, although the word workshop is in the PDF, a word which appears in the definition of “instruct” at Level 4, the employer does not see the presentations given by the Recruitment Officers in that light. They emphasize that the Recruitment Officers are not giving training such as first aid, or other instruction which they recipient is expected to retain. The employer accepts that the purpose of the presentations is to obtain applications to Fanshawe, but asserts that what is missing is an assigned level of communication to gain a commitment to a shared goal. Further, the fact that the presentations are often in schools, 10 because that is where most of the prospective students are to be found, does not convert the presentations into instruction or training as described at level 4, in the employer’s view. The employer describes the presentations as intended to be delivered in a predetermined way, giving information to secure understanding in an enthusiastic way. The union disagrees, noting that they do workshops on specific topics as needed or requested, such as filling out applications, dealing with options for skilled trades, or navigating the Ontario colleges’ website, all working to the shared goal of maximizing applications. The introduction to the section of the Manual devoted to the factor of Communication indicates that one of the elements to be measured is the interpersonal skills to obtain and maintain commitment and influence the actions of others. The key dispute is over whether Level 3 sufficiently measures the duties of the Recruitment Officers in that respect. I am of the view that the thrust of the PDF’s emphasis on sales skills and the idea of being assigned to motivate and persuade is an element of the job which goes beyond the limits of Level 3. In the summary of the job at the beginning of the PDF, the language explicitly states that they are to engage with their audiences in a way that maximizes applications to the College and encourages further opportunities for engagement. Further language in the summary of the duties and responsibilities indicates their purpose is to generate leads and applications. Candidates for the job must have exceptional presentation skills as well as sales experience. All of this presents a picture of a job that is doing more than informing, but is charged with moving the audience along to the College’s goal of having them apply. I am persuaded by the material before me that the note to raters at Level 4 is a good description of what the Recruitment Officers are required to do, in that they are charged with moving their audiences to the point of view that Fanshawe College is the place they should apply. As the note says, they work within parameters determined by the College, and there is definitely a preferred outcome, i.e. conversion from a prospect to a tuition paying student. It is the explicit focus of the sales techniques which have been added to the repertoire of the techniques applied by the Recruitment Officers in their assigned duties, using analysis of data concerning the competition and the most effective tactics to determine the best strategy to achieve the desired outcome. I am persuaded that this goes beyond securing understanding as recognized at Level 3. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to recognize the incumbents’ function in obtaining the cooperation of host schools to schedule presentations, and the sales function of persuading the prospective students to move to the preferred outcome of applying to Fanshawe at Level 4 for this factor. 11 iv. Physical effort The employer has rated this factor at level 2 as moderate physical effort while the union is seeking level 3, denoting heavy physical effort. The language central to the dispute is found in the Manual’s definitions of moderate and heavy, as follows: Moderate -pushing, pulling or lifting heavier objects (5 - 20 kg or 11 - 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). Heavy -pushing, pulling or lifting heavy objects (greater than 20 kg or 44 lbs) -sustained handling of objects (less than 20 kg or 44 lbs but greater than 5 kg or 11 lbs) -sustaining awkward work positions for long periods (over 30 minutes). The Union argues that the actual demands of the job are in the heavy range, and are accordingly asking for the addition of references to lifting of higher weights, longer periods of standing and less ability to adjust working positions, especially while driving, in the PDF. The College disagrees, as in their view, the Recruitment Officers have the ability to change posture or to take rest breaks, including from driving. The Recruitment Officers argue that they are required to lift materials heaver than the 44 pound limit for the moderate rating assigned. Although any one of the items they are required to lift does not exceed this level, the union notes that more than one of these items would be carried in a back pack, which would then weigh more than 44 pounds. The union argues that a Recruitment Officer would have to go back and forth to their vehicle 4 times to keep this as “moderate”, which would not be efficient or practical in the time available to set up the venues where they give presentations. Further, even when using a cart, there are times when there are stairs and the material has to be carried regardless. Further, the union argues that the PDF does not acknowledge events such as recruitment fairs that require standing for longer than 2 hours, in order to provide a professional, motivational, 12 presence at the college’s booth. As well, walking during campus tours takes about 50-60 minutes to complete. However, the union observes that recently there has been no limit on back-to-back tours, so that a Recruitment Officer could be walking for a 7-hour shift. As to the extensive travel the Recruitment Officers are required to do, the union asks for recognition under this factor for “sustaining awkward work positions for long periods” as they drive throughout Ontario. Although in some driving circumstances, it is possible to take breaks and reduce strain, the union’s brief observes that in others, having to get to a scheduled event in a trafficated area in inclement weather may make this impractical. For its part, the College submits that there is no expectation on staff to lift or carry materials which weigh more than 44 pounds. Rather, they are to divide the materials, and take additional trips, so they are not lifting such weight. The employer emphasizes ways that the Recruitment Officers can reduce the load, such as using carts to transport materials from their vehicle into the event location. In the employer’s view it is rare for a school not to have an elevator. They also underline that there is always the ability to move freely or change posture or stance, to reduce strain and to reduce any sustained handling of objects. The employer does not expect the officers to do tours without breaks in between or to stand for hours at other events with no breaks. As far as driving, the employer states that most of the trips are within 1.5 hours, and in southwestern Ontario. As well, at the time of the grievance, there were not a lot of fairs because of the pandemic. From the definitions in the Manual, the Recruitment Officers could qualify for a rating at the heavy level if they are expected to lift more than 44 pounds, or to sustain awkward positions for more than 30 minutes. The physical strain involved in travelling is recognized within this factor, and raters are to consider whether there is the ability to reduce strain from prolonged sitting. Starting with the question of weight, it is clear that none of the individual objects that the officers are required to lift weigh more than 44 lbs. It is also clear that the employer does not expect or require the officers to lift weight over that level at one time. It may be that further discussion is required about the logistics of achieving that, but I am persuaded that it is not an assigned responsibility of the job to lift weights in excess of 44 lbs. As well, I am not persuaded that it is an assigned responsibility to lead tours or stand at events without a break or ability to adjust positions. 13 As to the strain from travel, the situation is harder to assess, especially as the situation was not normal at the time of the grievance, when certain events were limited because of the pandemic. Although I accept that there may be times in inclement weather or intense traffic where it is difficult to stop and take a break from driving, I am not persuaded that this is a significant enough part of the job to warrant the higher rating. This may be another area where more discussion about the logistics of arranging breaks would clarify the situation further. On balance, then, it is my view that Level 2 is a good fit for the work of the Recruitment Officers, and it is therefore confirmed. v. Working Environment The employer has rated this factor at Level 2, denoting undesirable working conditions such as travel during inclement weather, as well as challenging customers. The union is looking for level 3, in recognition of occasional exposure to extreme weather conditions, dealing with abusive people who pose a threat of physical harm, and other conditions which may pose a risk to personal safety such as the risk of violence during high school visits and extensive driving in all types of weather. The factor descriptions in issue are as follows: 2. Working conditions involve: -difficult weather conditions -smelly, dirty or noisy environment(s) -exposure to very high/low temperatures -verbal abuse -working in isolated or crowded situations -travel 3. Working conditions involve: -exposure to extreme weather conditions -handling of hazardous substances -dealing with abusive people who pose a threat of physical harm -accessing crawl spaces/confined spaces -other conditions which may pose a risk to personal safety. Guidance from the Notes to Raters include that this factor reflects working conditions that are real and not a condition that might occur. As well, in respect of the travel component of the working environment factor, the "undesirable" aspect of having to leave the work site and travel somewhere else to complete work assignments is the emphasis, rather than the mode of travel. Any physical strain associated with travel is considered under Physical Demand. 14 The union also requests that “verbal abuse” be included in the PDF in light of an actual example of such language in an email from a client. This would not affect the rating, since it is included in the definition at Level 2, rather than 3, and could be introduced into the PDF. However, given that the PDF is not meant to list every condition that could attract a specific rating, and the fact that level two recognizes a working environment at a level which can include verbal abuse, I do not feel the need to make an order concerning this. Overall, I do not find that the PDF inaccurately reflects the assigned job content of the Recruitment Officer’s position. In considering the parties’ submissions on this factor, I accept the union’s submission that part of their work occurs outside, as they are required to load and unload vehicles to transport materials for their presentations, so that it is not the same as an employee who is only outside when arriving at work. However, the rating already includes credit for work conditions that include difficult weather. The Manual does not define extreme weather conditions, or provide other assistance in how to distinguish between inclement or difficult weather conditions and those that should be considered extreme. On the issue of weather, I find that the examples given by the union, such as weather that turns bad while already on the road, to be sufficiently covered by level 2 as “difficult weather conditions”. There were no examples of weather which I find warrants the description as extreme. On the other hand, the union’s submissions about other elements of their assigned work which fall under Level 3 are more persuasive in terms of frequent driving and potential of abusive people posing a threat of physical harm. For the latter, I am not persuaded by the issue of violence in high school settings, as there were no examples given of actual violence related to Recruitment Officer visits, so that appears more theoretical than real in my estimation. However, the union’s reference to an incident on campus where a Recruitment Officer’s personal safety was threatened to the extent that security had to be called and the person escorted off, leads me to find that this is unfortunately a real aspect of life on campus. Whether it is an intrinsic aspect of the assigned work of the Recruitment Officers is less clear. I accept the employer’s submission that the fact that the Recruitment Officers are not delivering controversial or negative messages, such as failure in a course or rejection from a program, makes it less likely that they would have their personal safety threatened. As to the fact that the Recruitment Officers travel frequently in all weather, the employer correctly notes that the Notes to Raters indicate that the aspect of travel recognized in this factor is having to leave the work site, rather than the actual mode of transportation. Because of this, it is my view that the hazards of driving on a wide variety of roads, during all seasons of the year, is not to be 15 considered under the travel heading, but can be properly considered under the last category at Level 3 of “other conditions which may pose a risk to personal safety”. The fact that defensive driving training has been offered to the Recruitment Officers indicates that driving in hazardous conditions is a real working condition, rather than something that could theoretically happen. In the result, I find that an occasional rating of level 3 is warranted for the factor Working Environment for at least the hazards of extensive driving. For the above reasons, I have determined that the rating for Working Environment should be raised with the addition of an Occasional rating at Level 3 to the employer’s rating at Level 2. *** To summarize, for the reasons set out above, the grievance is allowed in part. In regards to the rating of the disputed factors, my findings are: i. Guiding/advising others - Confirmed at Level 2 ii. Independence of Action - Confirmed at Level 3 iii. Communication – Raised to Level 4 iv. Physical effort – Confirmed at Level 2 v. Working environment – Raised to Level 2, with Occasional Level 3 This brings the point rating to 662, which falls within Pay band J. The arbitration data sheet is attached. I will remain seized to deal with any problems in implementation of the above decision, including any dispute concerning retroactive pay, which the parties are unable to resolve themselves. Dated this 6th day of January, 2023 ______________________________________ Kathleen G. O’Neil, Arbitrator 7 /lrhitr:rtion College: Fanshawe College_ Curren! Payband: "1" Data Slieet - Support Staff (:lassification Incumbent: Recruitment Offi cers Supervisor: Payband Requested by Grievor: " K' I, 2. bncerning the attached Position Description r The parties agreed on the cootenis Ihe attached Written Submission is from: o Form: The Union disagrees with the contents and the specific details are attached. The Union ri The College 1A. Educatior 18. Educrtion 2. Expe ence 3. Analysisand Probl Solving 4. Planninq/Coordina 5. Grridin q r,d:!,"I 1: t't':" Bj c9T.! 9. Physical 10. Audio/ 11. Wo*inq Subtotals -!-otal poin Resulti Signatures: Factor Management tJnion Arbitrator 4 4B 4 48 4 ,tg 1 3 1 3 I 6 5 6q 5 69 5 bq and Problem ng tinq 4 3 110 4 110 4 //D 56 3 56 Z fb cllAdvising Otf!ers 3 29 4 41 3 A? pendence of Actiol 3 7B 5 142 5 7g i(e Delivery 3 51 3 5l 2 o'/ munication 3 7A 4 110 {//o Etfbrt )?6 3 47 a'b Visual Effort 35 3A 35 3rt 3{ EnvironmenI )3B 2 3B 3 9 a ,g 3 (a) 62I (b) 0 (a) 7s0 (b) e ot b€3 (lr) ts (a)(b)2t 159 bt,, nq Payband l(J- (G.ievor)(Date)(C-ollege Representative)(Date) (Date) Vt,zgzz (Date of Hearing) (Unim ReFeser