HomeMy WebLinkAboutVesik 10-07-28
,I
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 563
(hereinafter called the Union)
- and -
HUMBER COLLEGE
(hereinafter called the College)
- and -
CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE OF ENDEL VESIK
(hereinafter called the Grievor)
SOLE ARBITRATOR
Professor Ian A. Hunter
AP PEARAN CES:
FOR THE UNION:
Ms. Mary Anne Kuntz, Senior Grievance Officer
FOR THE COLLEGE:
Mr. Daniel Michaluk, Counsel
ARBITRATION HEARINGS WERE HELD IN TORONTO, ONTARIO ON
JANUARY 12, MAY 26 AND 27,2010; FINAL SUBMISSIONS BY
CONFERENCE CALL ON JULY 19, 2010
2
AWARD
(1) Background
On March 30, 2009 I was appointed as arbitrator with a hearing scheduled for
September 24,2009, Pursuant to Article 18.4,3.4 I received written briefs from the parties.
On examination of the briefs it became apparent that (a) there was no agreement on the
content of the P.D.F.; (b) eleven (11) of the twelve (12) job factors were in dispute; and (c)
the disparity between the parties on the job factors exceeded two hundred (200) points.
All of this suggested to me that the parties had not made a serious attempt to narrow the
areas of dispute. I spoke with the parties and requested that they meet on September 24,
2009 and attempt to narrow the issues.
The parties met on September 24, 2009; on November 4, 2009 I was advised that
no progress had been made.
I conducted arbitration hearings in Toronto, Ontario on January 12, May 26 and 27,
2010, and a conference call for final argument on July 19,2010.
I am indebted to Ms, Mary Anne Kuntz, from O.P.S.E.U., and to Mr. Daniel
Michaluk, who appeared for Humber College, for their able presentation of this case.
3
(2) Overview of the Position
The Grievor, Mr. Endel Vesik, is a Support Service Technician at Humber College's
Information Technology Department at the Lakeshore Campus. Technicians provide on-
site technical support to staff and students at Humber College. Within the Information
Technology Department, Technicians peliorm service functions such as install new
computers, troubleshoot and repair existing hardware and software, and preventative
maintenance. The Department uses a "ticket" system; when a technical problem is
reported to the Help Desk (which is at Main Campus), a "ticket" (College Brief, Tab G) is
generated and the "ticket" is assigned to a Technician to deal with. The ticket indicates
who initiated the request ("Open by"), a "Summary" of the problem, and the name of the
Technician (e.g. Vesik) to whom it is assigned. The ticket also assigns a priority to the
request on a scale ranging from 1 (most serious) to 5 (least serious). The assignment of
priority is made by the Help Desk agent who received the call.
The P.D.F. refers to a number of routine tasks performed by the position: setting up
workstations (page 6); installing software (page 7); remedying printer jams (page 8);
imaging or re-imaging computers (page 9); and maintaining inventory records (page 11).
The Technician is the front-line service provider; many of the tickets dealt with are
routine in nature. But there is also a troubleshooting component to the position in which
the Technician must ascertain and deal with more complex problems. If he cannot fix it
readily, he refers the problem to a Co-Ordinator or a more specialized LT. area within the
College, or he may recommend that the hardware be sent outside the College for repair.
4
In the Union brief, the Grievor provided his own twenty-five (25) page P.D.F.. I have
read it. From the evidence it is c1earto me that, while no P.D.F. can capture every nuance
and subtlety of any position, the College P,D.F. is generally more accurate and more in
conformity with the oral evidence in describing the Support Service Technician position
than the P.D.F. provided by the Grievor.
Mr. Vesik's pre~hearing submission to me also contained a letter (August 31,2009)
in which he asserts that he is not a Technician but rather a Technologist. In effect, he was
asking, through arbitration, to be reclassified into a different position. I do not believe that
an arbitrator under the joint classification system adopted by the parties has authority to
do that; but even if I did have that authority, the evidence did not support that result.
I turn now to the specific job factors.
(3) Job Factors Agreed
Only two (2) job factors were agreed:
Job Factor
Level
Points
18. Education
8. Communication
2
3
12
78
5
(4) Job Factors in Dispute
Both the Grievor and his Supervisor (at the date of the grievance, Mr. Ryan Burton)
testified. Each was questioned by Ms. Kuntz and Mr. Michaluk, and, to a limited extent,
by me. I found this oral evidence helpful in coming to my decision on the disputed job
factors.
1A. Education
This factor looks at the level of formal education required; it considers also
additional education beyond the scope of the formal education required. It
examines the minimum formal education required to perform the position
responsibilities.
The College has rated this factor at Level 3: "2 year diploma or equivalent".
The Union has rated this factor at Level 4: "3 year diploma/degree ...".
I note, first, that the College P.D.F. specifies a "2 year diploma or equivalent" as the
minimum requirement. Second, I agree with the College submission that Education
(1A) must be read in conjunction with 1 B; under Education 1 B the parties have
agreed that there may be additional educational requirements obtained by courses
up to one hundred (100) hours. When one considers all aspects of the P.D.F. it is
clear that Humber College's requirement for the Technician position is:
(1) a 2 year diploma or equivalent in computer sciences;
6
(2) certification in I.T.L. Foundations; and
(3) one (1) year of related experience "... in a fast-paced environment providing
on-site technical (hardware and software) support" (P.D.F.).
The evidence established to my satisfaction that these are reasonable, minimal
requirements for the Technician position at Humber College.
Through the Union brief, the Grievor made the submission that the Technician
position was "quite similar" to an I. T. Specialist position, and therefore Education 1 A
should be rated at Level 4. This submission was not supported by the evidence and
I reject it.
The LT. Specialist position at Humber College is in a separate school; School of
Media Studies and Information Technology. The duties required of an I. T.
Specialist (e.g. "... developing enabling technologies ... integrating the services
required in an enterprise computing environment ...") have no parallel in the duties
of a Support Service Technician. As Mr. Burton put it in his evidence: "You are
comparing apples and oranges".
The Grievor claimed that an earlier P.D.F. for the position had included a 3 year
diploma requirement. This was never proved. When I asked the Grievor what
specific 3 year diploma he thought should be the minimum formal education
requirement, he answered "Computer Engineering or Electronics". The Grievor
does not have this 3 year diploma, nor was there evidence that other Humber
Support Service Technicians have it. Yet, on the evidence, he (and they) are fully
capable of satisfactory performance.
7
By contrast, Mr. Ryan Burton (Client Services Manager) testified that he had hired
four (4) to six (6) Support Service Technicians since assuming his position in
December 2006. All had 2 year diplomas, and one (1) year of related experience,
and he was comfortable with that as the minimum requirement. The one (1) year
experience requirement, he explained, might be obtained in a College or similar
facility, or in a Tech business (e.g. Geek Squad). He also explained, in some
detail, why Help Desk agents require a broader range of technical experience to do
their functions.
I am satisfied that the College's rating of Education 1 A is correct.
Education (1A)
- Level 3
- 35 Points
2. Experience
This factor measures the typical number of years experience, in addition to
education, required to perform the duties of the position.
The College has rated this factor at Level 2: "Minimum 1 year".
The Union has rated this factor at Level 3: "Minimum 2 years".
The Manual says that I should consider the "... minimum time required in prior
positions to learn the techniques, methods and practices necessary to perform this
'b "
JO ....
8
The P.D.F. narrows down the kind of experience the College seeks: "Minimum of
one year experience in a fast-paced environment providing on-site technical
(hardware and software) support" (page 5).
As previously mentioned, Mr. Burton gave specific examples of the kind of
experience the College was looking for and where such experience might be
acquired.
The Technician is the first-step Humber responder to technical problems. If I
consider some examples given in the P.D.F. (e.g. setting up new workstations
(page 6); remedying printer jams (page 8); deploying workstations in labs (page
10)), some of the work required in the position must be considered routine and
basic.
There is also a "troubleshooting" component to the position. However, it was the
evidence of Mr. Burton, the Grievor's Supervisor, that these functions would quite
easily be performed by Technicians with one (1) year's experience. Even for the
examples provided by the Grievor in the Union Brief (cf. Evidence #2), I am
convinced that one (1) year of experience would be adequate to deal with most, if
not all, of those.
When I asked the Grievor what new experience a second year would provide that
would not be encountered in the first year, he could give no examples. When I
asked directly: "Would the experience gained in a second year be qualitatively
different from the experience gained in the first year?", he answered "No".
9
The College has evaluated Experience at Level 2, 24 points. I hold that this is
correct.
Experience
- Level 2
- 24 Points
3. Analysis and Problem Solving
This factor measures the level of complexity involved in analysing situations,
information or problems of varying levels of difficulty.
The College has rated this factor at Level 2: "Situations and problems are easily
identifiable. Analysis or problem solving is straightforward. Solutions may require
modification of existing alternatives or past practices."
The Union has rated this factor at Level 3: "Situations and problems are identifiable,
but may require further inquiry in order to define them precisely. Solutions require
the analysis and collection of information, some of which may be obtained from
areas or resources which are not normally used by the position." The Union also
proposes an Occasional rating at Level 4.
Levels 2 speaks of lIeasily identifiable" problems; Level 3 requires "further inquiry"
in orderto precisely define the problem. From the Grievor's evidence, I am satisfied
that the problems he encounters are easily identifiable; some (a minority) do require
"further inquiry" to precisely define.
10
But the "solutions" do not usually require the Technician to "collect other
information" from, say, other departments. At pages 6-8 of the P,D.F. there are
three (3) regular and recurring examples of problem solving; these, in my view, are
embraced within Level 2. There are also two (2) "occasional" examples given
(jammed printer; student inappropriately using workstation); both of these examples
are adequately embraced at Level 2.
The "troubleshooting" aspect of the Grievor's position comes closest to suggesting
Level 3. But, upon reflection, I have concluded that Level 2 is correct; first, the
Technician has available certain aids (e.g. Known Error database; Knowledge
Solutions database) to assist him. More important, College policy is that if a
Technician cannot quickly and simply handle the "ticket" problem, they are to (a)
refer the problem to someone else (e.g. the Co-ordinator or another College
resource) or have the hardware sent out for repair. The Technician is the first-step
responder; if the problem solving is not basic, it is the Technician's job to refer it
elsewhere and move on to do something else,
The Grievor defined the "gist" of the troubleshooting required in three (3) steps: (1)
Identify the problem; (2) Try a possible solution; and (3) If that solution doesn't work,
try something else. His evidence was that eighty (80%) to eighty-five percent (85%)
of the "ticket" hardware or software problems, he can resolve. This, I conclude, is
because they are basic, recurring type problems. Those problems that he cannot
resolve he refers (by sending the ticket back to the Help Desk), and from there on
to one of the College's specialized Departments (e,g. Network; Mainframe;
Configuration Management, etc.).
11
I suggested to the Grievor that in such cases he was like a general medical
practitioner referring a complex or baffling problem to a specialist. He accepted that
as lla fair analogy",
There was nothing in the evidence to suggest a requirement for "analysis and
collection of information, some of which may be obtained from areas or resources
which are not normally used by the position". This is one indicator of Level 3.
From the evidence of the Grievor, and his Supervisor, Mr. Burton, I find that
Analysis and Problem Solving required in the position is Level 2.
Analysis and Problem Solving - Level 2
- 46 Points
4, Planning/Coordinating
This factor measures organizational and/or project management skills required in
the position.
The College has rated this factor at Level 2: "Plan/coordinate activities and
resources to complete own work and achieve overlapping deadlines."
The Union proposes Level 3: "Plan/coordinate activities, information or material to
enable completion of tasks and events, which affect the work schedule of other
employees."
12
The Manual (page 16) clarifies that Level 2 positions are typically focussed on
completion of assigned activities within established deadlines. This exactly
describes the Grievor's duties, as assigned on the "ticket" system which gives each
assignment a priority rating. By contrast, Level 3 envisages planning and
coordination that affects the work schedule of other employees. There was little
evidence of that in this case, although the Grievor did allude to potential student
disruption when computer equipment is replaced or reconfigured for a lab. However
on the relatively rare occasions when this must done, it is scheduled before classes
begin (usually in the summer months).
The Grievor estimated that about twenty-five percent (25%) of his work had the
potential to affect the schedules of other employees; for the most part, however, this
was the schedule of the employee whose computer he was working on, The
Grievor generally plans and coordinates his own work, but that is done within the
"ticket" priority system. The Grievor's daily tasks are performed within minimal
direction or oversight from his Supervisor, but this is because the prioritizing of the
work is done at the Help Desk and has been assigned before the "ticket" reaches
the Grievor.
I have considered the Grievor's evidence about reconfiguring or re-imaging
computer labs at the Lakeshore Campus; suffice to say that this evidence did not,
in my opinion, take the position to Level 3.
There was no evidence to persuade me that the College's evaluation of this factor
was in error.
13
Plan ning/Coordinating
- Level 2
- 32 Points
5. Guiding/Advising Others
This factor refers to assigned responsibility to guide or advise others (i.e.
employees, students, clients). It measures something over and beyond the
communication inherent in any College support staff position,
The College has rated this factor at Level 2: "Guide others so they can complete
specific tasks." The College proposes an Occasional rating of Level 3: llAdvise
others to enable them to perform their day-to-day activities."
The Union proposes Level 3 (supra) with an Occasional rating of Level 4:
"Guide/advise others with ongoing involvement in their progress," [The Grievor's
letter to me (August 31, 2009) proposed Level 5 but, wisely, the Union did not
pursue that.]
The P.D.F. justifies the College rating (i.e. Regular 2; Occasional 3) by stating:
"Technician serves as coach and mentor to 3-5 interns". In these cases, the
Technician may"... provide direction when interns run into something unexpected
in the field".
The evidence of the Grievorwas that he regularly trains both interns and work-study
students on how to use specific software and hardware and on how to perform
diagnostic testing. His Supervisor, Mr. Burton, testified that the Grievor was not
14
involved in training interns or work-study students. He may, on occasion, work
alongside them on a large project (e.g. re-equipping a lab) but he gives them
neither direction nor instruction, nor does he in any way evaluate their work.
The Manual (page 18) advises Raters that Level 3 applies to "involvement... of an
advisory nature and the position is not responsible for how those advised
subsequently complete their tasks". In a sense he is involved in training interns or
work-study students, because on occasion he will work alongside them on a big
project (e.g. re-equipping a lab). But the Grievor does not direct their work, nor
instruct or in any way evaluate their performance.
The Grievor does not perform this function now. At the date of the grievance
(August 2008) and until the College adopted the AL TIRIS software development
program used to re-image computers, the Grievorworked alongside interns orwork-
study students on major projects. But even then his position was not of an
"advisory" nature, although he might demonstrate a process or technique for them.
Since the new AL TIRIS system came in (about two (2) years ago) Mr. Burton was
clear that the Grievor does not guide or advise any interns or work-study students.
While in the rare case of an emergency (which might happen once or twice a year)
the Grievor may work alongside such students, for the most part the Grievor works
alone. As a "pilot project" the College did hire a student (Brian Strong) to "work off
the Grievor's [ticket} queuefl from January to April, 2010. Even then, Mr. Burton
stressed, the Grievor was not responsible for assigning work, or for guiding or
advising Mr. Strong.
15
The evidence before me supports the College's rating: Regular Level 2; Occasional
Level 3.
Guiding/Advising Others
- Regular - Level 2
- Occasional - Level 3
- 17 Points
- 3 Points
6. Independence of Action
This factor measures the level of independence or autonomy in the position. Raters
should consider "the parameters and constraints of the position within which the
incumbent is free to act".
The College has rated this factor at Level 2: "Position duties are completed
according to established procedures. Decisions are made following specific
guidelines. Changes may be made to work routine(s),"
The Union rates this factor at Level 3: "Position duties are completed according to
general processes. Decisions are made following general guidelines to determine
how tasks should be completed,"
The Manual clarifies that Level 2 positions are limited to defining the order or
sequence in which tasks or duties should be performed. Level 3 positions select the
process(es) to achieve the end result (page 20).
16
I asked the Grievor who determines the sequence in which his duties will be
performed. He claimed that he did because "I know the Department and I know the
computers". I accept this, but on the evidence, it is the "ticket" that determines the
priority of the Grievor's assignments. The Grievor completes his assignments by
following established procedures. He may make changes to his work routines, but
the position does not reach the level of autonomy of Level 3.
In his evidence, the Grievor claimed that about fifteen percent (15%) of his work
was governed by inquiries or requests made directly to him (called in the trade
"ambushes") that did not come through the Help Desk. To the extent that this is
true, this is contrary to his Supervisor's directions and to College policies.
Mr. Burton elaborated at some length as to why the College must enforce the ticket
policy. Ms. Kuntz, in final submissions, suggested that HMr. Vesik is all about
service; Mr. Burton is all about process". I do not agree with this. Mr. Burton, in my
opinion, emphasized the importance of process precisely because he believes it will
maximize customer service. There are specific "ticket" processes in place precisely
to ensure that service is provided in an efficient, timely way. When confronted with
the Grievor's evidence concerning the fifteen percent (15%) of his work which is
requested outside the ticket process, Mr. Burton said: "Well, I understand that it can
be difficult to say 'No'. It is tough to direct people to the Help Desk instead of just
doing the job. EndeJ's heart is in the right place. He wants to help. But the ticket
process is critical to the success of our operation. I probably still have work to do
with Endel on that."
The evidence persuades me that the College's rating (Level 2) is the best fit.
17
Independence of Action
- Level 2
- 46 Points
7. Service Delivery
This factor examines the relationship between the position and its customers. How
are requests for service received? How does the position fulfill the service
requirement?
The College has rated this factor at Level 2: uProvide service according to
specifications by selecting the best method of delivering service,"
The Union proposes Level 3: "Tailor service based on developing a full
understanding of the customer's needs." "Tailor" here means modifying oradapting
or customizing service to a specific requirement. The Union also proposes an
Occasional rating at Level 4.
The Manual (page 22) indicates that Level 2 embraces service which requires the
incumbent to (a) know the options available; (b) be able to explain those options to
the customer; and (c) select or recommend the best option. Nothing in the evidence
of the Grievor or his Supervisor persuaded me that the position goes beyond that
three (3) step process of service delivery.
The Grievor gets his assignments from the tickets. He tackles each assignment
with a routine and straightforward three step problem solving process. He refers the
more complex or difficult problems to specialist departments.
18
I have examined the Grievor's "tickets", as supplied to me by the parties. The
tickets corroborate my earlier conclusion that the position implements known
solutions to (mostly) routine problems. If the problems are complex, they are
referred elsewhere,
A quote from page 22 of the Manual directly applies to this position: "The incumbent
selects or recommends the best option based on the customer's needs. There is no,
or limited, ability for the incumbent to change the options."
Therefore, the College has correctly rated Service Delivery.
Service Delivery
- Level 2
- 29 Points
9. Physical Effort
This factor measures the degree and frequency of physical effort required by the
position.
The College has rated this factor at Regular, Level 2: "moderate physical effort";
Occasional, Level 3: "heavy physical effort",
The Union rates this factor at Regular, Level 3: "heavy physical effort".
The Manual distinguishes "moderate" from "heavy" as follows:
19
Moderate - pushing, pulling, lifting up to 44 Ibs.
Heavy - pushing, pulling, lifting over 44 Ibs.
It is common ground between the parties that the position sometimes entails
"heavy" lifting (Le. boxes of paper, computer, printers, etc.).
But is that heavy lifting "regular & recurring"? That is the issue. The P.D.F.
suggests that such heavy lifting would not exceed one (1) hour per day.
The Grievor initially testified that he is involved in heavy lifting approximately two (2)
hours per day. But the Griever also said that on some days there is no heavy lifting,
and later said: "On average, maybe half an hour a day I might be lifting something
heavy".
Mr. Burton thought even half an hour of heavy lifting a day was excessive. He
thought it might be closer to "once or twice a week averaged out over a year".
Having considered all the evidence, the Union has failed to prove that the College's
rating is incorrect.
Physical Effort
- Regular - Level 2
- Occasional - Level 3
- 26 Points
- 6 Points
20
10. AudioNisual Effort
This factor measures the requirement for audio or visual effort required in the
position.
In this factor the parties are agreed on Level 2: "Regular & recurring long periods
of concentration; or occasional extended periods of concentration," Where they
differ is on whether or not this is a "Focus Maintained" (College) or "Focus
Interrupted" (Union) position.
The only factor referenced by the Union as suggesting "focus interrupted" was the
fact that the Grievor is required to carry a Blackberry. This, and the fact that he
occasionally gets calls on it, does not meet the test of "focus interrupted". In any
event, customer service is an integral part of the position; so the fact that the
Grievor may receive another service request on his Blackberry while he is out
servicing someone else) does not meet the test in the Manual (see page 28,
paragraph 5). I note that the only example the Grievor gave of his focus being
interrupted was precisely that (Le. people calling on his Blackberry when he was out
servicing another request).
AudioNisual Effort
- Level 2
- 20 Points
21
11. Working Environment
This factor looks at the environment in which the work is performed. It also
considers the extent to which there are undesirable or hazardous elements in the
workplace.
The parties are agreed at a rating for this factor at Level 2, which embraces
something less than "acceptable" but not the most adverse working conditions. The
Union also proposes an Occasional rating at Level 3.
The only elements in the Grievor's evidence that related to less than "acceptable"
working conditions were these:
he handles toner cartridges;
he travels on occasion to the Main Campus;
he sometimes has to go outside from building to building on the
Lakeshore Campus in less than ideal weather conditions;
sometimes students or staff get angry if printers are not working
properly.
It was Mr. Burton's evidence that the College Health and Safety Committee had
examined the issue of toner cartridge and specifically concluded that they are safe
and pose no health risk.
All of the buildings around the Lakeshore Campus are linked by tunnels so there is
no requirement for the Grievor to go outside in inclement weather.
22
I have taken into account the examples mentioned by the Grievor; I have weighed
them cumulatively, and I have concluded that the College rating is correct.
Working Environment
- Level 2
- 38 Points
(5) Decision
I have completed and appended an Arbitration Data Sheet.
Forthe reasons given, the grievance of Mr. EndelVesik (Exhibit 1) is dismissed, and
the College's rating of Level F, 412 points is confirmed.
Dated at the City of Sl. Thomas thisJ.wLday of ~i f
,2010.
tU{ r/t-wC
~r6fi ssor Ian A. Hunter
"Arbit ator
-.......--.,
23
ARBITRA TION DATA SHEET - Support Staff Classification
College: Humber Incumbent: Endel Vesik Supervisor: Ryan Burton
Current Payband: G (red circled) Payband Requested by Grievor: ..1
1, Concerning the attached Position Description Form:
_ The parties agreed on the contents _ The Union disagrees with the contents
and the specific details are attached.
2. The attached Written Submission is from: The Union _ The College
Management Union Arbitrator
Regular/ Regular/ Regular/
Recurring Occasional Recurring Occasional Recurrjn~ Occasional
Factor level Points level Points level Points level Points level Pomts level Points
1 A. Education 3 35 4 48 3 35
1 B. Education 2 12 2 12 2 12
2. Experience 2 24 3 39 2 24
3. Anal~sis and
Prob em Solving 2 46 3 78 4 9 2 46
4. Planning/ 2 32 3 56
Coordinating 2 32
5. Guiding/ 2 17 3 3 29 4 3 2
Advising Others 3 17 3 3
6. Independence 3 2
of Action 2 46 78 46
7. Service Delivery 2 29 3 51 4 6 2 29
8. Communication 3 78 3 78 3 78
9. Physical Effort 2 26 3 6 3 47 2 26 3 6
10. AudioNisual
Effort 2 20 2 35 2 20
11. Working 2 38 2 38 3 9
Environment 2 38
Subtotals (a) 403 (b) 9 (a) 589 (b) 27 (a) 403 (b) 9
Total Points
(a) + (b) 412 616 412
Resullin~
Payban F F