HomeMy WebLinkAboutBates Group 10-12-01
1; fi"
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION. LOCAL 241
(hereinafter called the Union)
- and -
MOHAWK COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(hereinafter called the College)
- and -
CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCE - JOB CENTRE CONSULTANTS
(BATES GROUP}
SOLE ARBITRATOR
PROFESSOR IAN A. HUNTER
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE UNION:
Mr. Val Patrick and Ms. Mary Anne Kuntz
FOR THE COLLEGE:
Mr. Daniel Michaluk, Counsel
ARBITRATION HEARINGS WERE HELD AT MOHAWK COLLEGE IN
HAMILTON, ONTARIO ON SEPTEMBER 9 AND NOVEMBER 26,2010
2
AWARD
(1) Introduction
Before me is a group grievance (Exhibit 1) signed by nine (9) Job Centre
Consultants who work in the Job Centre at Mohawk College in Hamilton.
The catalyst for the grievance appears to have been the College's
decision in 2007 to require Job Centre Consultants (i.e. the Grievors) to teach
the mandatory Co-op Preparation Program (CPP), replacing four (4) faculty
members who had previously taught the program to co-op students; the Job
Centre Consultants have continued to teach a compressed CPP, on a rotational
basis, to the present time.
The College's decision to eliminate faculty and to assign the teaching
duties to the Job Centre Consultants, was apparently the subject of a faculty
grievance. When I convened the classification arbitration hearing on September
9, 2010 the outcome of that grievance was unknown, and I required that the
O.P.S.E.U. Local (241) give notice to the faculty union of the present grievance
(Exhibit 1) so that the faculty union, as an interested party, might decide whether
it wished to be a party to this process. On the resumption of the arbitration
hearing on November 26,2010 I was advised that there is no faculty grievance
outstanding.
3
(2) Overview of the Position
The "Co-op and Career Co-ordinators" (colloquially referred to as Job
Centre Consultants) co-ordinate the employment experience for co-op students
at Mohawk College. Mohawk College has, on its Fennell campus, a Job Centre
and Co-operative Education office where the Job Centre Consultants work with
Employment Advisors, Representatives, a Receptionist and an Outreach
Planning Co-ordinator.
The Job Centre Consultants work with students and prospective
employers to ensure that the co-op work term experience is successfully
integrated into each student's academic program.
Mohawk College has approximately thirty (30) co-op programs serving
more than fifteen hundred (1500) students in any given academic year. The Job
Centre Consultants work with students, academic departments, and with
employers to ensure a meaningful co-op work experience for each student. Each
Job Centre Consultant has primary responsibility for a designated group of
programs, for example, Mr. Lawrence Jarvis, who testified on behalf of the group
of Grievors, has primary responsibility for the Health Wellness and Fitness; Law
and Security Administration; and Police Foundations programs.
4
The Consultants work at Mohawk Job Centre located on the Fennell
campus. At the date of the grievance the Job Centre Consultants reported to Mr.
Jim Vanderveken, whose title was Director of Community Training Solutions and
Co-op Education. Mr. Vanderveken has since become Dean, Faculty of
Interdisciplinary Studies, and the Grievors now report to Mr. AI Ersser.
The core components of the position include:
(1) Student Preparation for the Co-op Proqram
This includes advising students on the expectations of the co-op program,
advising, monitoring and follow-up on co-op placements; resolution of
issues that arise in the co-op experience; and, on an alternate basis,
teaching the mandatory Cpp, The P,D.F. (August 2009, Exhibit 3)
estimates the student component at approximately thirty percent (30%) of
the incumbents' time annually; however Mr. Jarvis said the figure was
actually closer to fifty percent (50%), and I accept his evidence.
(2) Working With Emplovers
This includes promotion and marketing of the Mohawk co-op program;
prospecting employers; and generating both co-op placements and future
permanent job opportunities for co-op students. Mr. Jarvis estimated this
5
function at about thirty to thirty-five percent (30% - 35%) of the
incumbents' time and I accept his evidence.
(3) Facultv and College Enqaqement (Fifteen Percent (15%)
This involves the incumbent in College academic planning for the co-op
program. The Job Centre Consultant acts as a liaison between industry
and faculty members, and conveys information to faculty about the ever
changing needs of his or her specialized employment areas.
(4) Community Partnership (Five to Ten Percent (5% - 10%)
This involves liaison between the Job Centre Consultant and the broader
community; e.g. Chambers of Commerce, industry and professional
groups, job fairs, etc..
Through the evidence, I learned that Mohawk College has been a pioneer
in the field of co-op education. There is no doubt that the Job Centre Consultants
are crucial to the success of the co-op program.
6
(3) The P.D.F.
The parties submitted two (2) P.D.F.'s for this position. The first (dated
August 2009; Union Brief, Tab 4) was provided to the Union pursuant to Article
18.4.2.1 and was the P.D.F. used by both parties during the grievance
procedure.
The second P.D.F. included unilateral revisions made by the College (in
December 2009, and February 2010) after the filing of the grievance (College
Brief, Tab A).
The parties did not initially agree on which P,D.F. should be used at the
arbitration hearing. However, at the hearing on November 26,2010 the parties
agreed that the August 2009 P.D.F. was the operative P,D.F. to be used.
7
(4) Job Factors Aqreed
Regular Occasional
Job Factor Level Points Level Points
1 B. Education 3 21
2. Experience 5 69
5. Guiding/Advising Others 5 53
9. Physical Effort 2 26
11. Working Environment 2 38
(5) Job Factors in Dispute
1 A. Ed ucation
This factor measures the minimum formal education required to perform
the responsibilities of the position.
The College has rated this factor Level 4 (48 Points): "3 year
diploma/degree, trade certification, or equivalent".
The Union has rated this factor Level 5 (61 Points): "4 year degree, or 3
year diploma/degree plus professional certification, or equivalent",
8
The Union's submission was essentially based on two (2) arguments:
(1) The August 2009 P.D.F. (Exhibit 3) is a College document; the
document specifies under 1A. Education "... 4 year degree plus
professional certification, or equivalent";
(2) In a Job Centre Consultant job posting (July 12, 2007) the College
required "A minimum 3 year diploma plus professional certification
(degree preferred) or equivalent, incorporating a strong focus on
communication skills, marketing, job development and human
relations". The Union submits that these criteria, in sum, are a
better fit at Level 5 than at Level 4.
I agree with both of the Union's submissions. It is telling that Mr. Jim
Vanderveken, when he was the Grievors' immediate Supervisor and
Director of the Job Centre, specified a 4 year degree, plus professional
certification as the minimum requirement. The August 2009 P.D.F.
(Exhibit 3) is a College, not a Union, document; to allow the College to
substitute a lesser requirement at arbitration is, in my judgement, a
violation of the contra preferendum principle of statute or contract
interpretation.
9
The evidence of Mr. Lawrence Jarvis, who actually does the job, was clear
and unequivocal that a 4 year degree, or equivalent, was required. He
pointed out that twenty to twenty-five percent (20% - 25%) of the Mohawk
student population comes from a university background; similarly
approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of Mohawk graduates will go on
to university. Therefore, he considered a knowledge and understanding of
university programs, and the general university environment, to be an
important educational requirement.
Mr. Vanderveken testified that a 3 year diploma/degree, plus some
additional certification (he mentioned specifically Career Practitioner
programs, Business programs (i.e. Marketing), Counselling Techniques,
etc.) was the minimum requirement. However, when the August 2009
P.D.F. was put to him he testified: "When I drafted that, we were looking
into the future and trying to assess our professional requirements. We
wanted to ensure that we were identifying the appropriate minimum
educational requirement going forward".
Mr. Vanderveken did not suggest that the educational requirements for the
position had diminished since 2009.
Accordingly, both on the contra preferendum principle, and on the Union's
second submission that, taken in sum, the educational requirements are a
10
better fit at Level 5 than at Level 4, I find that 1A. Education should be
rated at Level 5 (61 Points).
1 A. Education
Level 5
61 Points
_3. Analvsis and Problem Solving
This factor measures the level of complexity involved in analyzing
situations, information or problems of varying levels of difficulty; and in
developing options, solutions or other actions.
The College has rated this factor at Level 4 (110 Points): "Situations and
problems are not readily identifiable and often require further investigation
and research. Solutions require the interpretation and analysis of a range
of information according to established techniques and/or principles".
The Union has rated this factor at Level 5 (142 Points): "Situations and
problems are complex and multi-faceted and symptoms are vague or
incomplete. Further investigation is required. Solutions require the
interpretation and analysis of information within generally accepted
principles",
11
The evidence of both Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Vanderveken established that a
substantial percentage of co-op students whom the incumbents deal with
fall into non-traditional categories (e.g. immigrants; English as a second
language students; second career students, etc.). This undoubtedly adds
to the complexity of the co-op placement process, and I have taken this
into account.
The incumbents monitor the co-op placements and must be involved in
resolution of on-the-job conflicts when they arise; the P.D.F. gives as an
example sexual harassment, and both Mr. Jarvis and Mr, Vanderveken
testified about a specific case of sexual harassment involving a co-op
placement. Other on-the-job conflicts may arise from labour disputes, or
the conduct of the co-op student on the job. Such situations
unquestionably require understanding, tact and diplomacy on the part of
Job Centre Consultants.
The P.D.F. refers to "complex issues and sometimes serious situations"
that a Job Centre Consultant must deal with. However the methodology
required of the Job Centre Consultant to resolve such issues is more
suggestive to me of Level 4 than Level 5. Problems encountered may
require "... further investigation and research" (Level 4) but the symptoms
are not "vague or incomplete" (Level 5),
12
I have reviewed also the examples included in the P.D.F. (Exhibit 3) of
regular and recurrent problems; e.g. insufficient co-op jobs available for
students; students unable to grasp the techniques and expectations
required to develop a resume, cover letter and portfolios. Mr,
Vanderveken testified that these examples were typical and recurrent. To
resolve such problems a Level 4 rating on Analysis and Problem Solving is
adequate.
Nothing in the evidence of Mr. Jarvis persuaded me that Analysis and
Problem Solving warranted a Level 5 rating.
3. Analysis and Problem Solving
Level 4
110 Points
4. Planning/Coordinating
This factor measures the planning and/or coordinating requirements of the
position. 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. There may be a need to
perform tasks with overlapping deadlines (multi-tasking) to achieve the
decided results.
13
The College has rated this factor at Regular, Level 2 and Occasional,
Level 3.
The Union has rated this factor Level 4: "Plan/coordinate and integrate
activities and resources for multi-faceted events, projects or activities
involving other employees. This typically involves modifying these
individuals' priorities for activities/projects to meet objectives".
From the P.D.F., and from the oral evidence of Mr. Jarvis and Mr,
Vanderveken, I have concluded that the College's rating (Regular, Level 2;
Occasional, Level 3) undervalues the Planning/Coordinating requirements
of the Job Centre Consultant position; similarly, I have concluded that the
Union's proposed rating (Level 4) overstates the requirement. Let me
explain.
Level 4 is inappropriate because the position does not plan, coordinate or
integrate "multi-faceted events" involving other employees. Nor does the
Job Centre Consultant have authority to require other employees to modify
their schedules, priorities or projects. Page 16 of the Manual states: "...
At this level, the position would have the authority to require others to
modify their schedules and priorities". There was no evidence of that.
14
However, Level 2 is inappropriate because Job Centre Consultants do
regularly affect the work schedules of other employees: co-op students,
other Job Centre employees, and external employers. The P.D.F. gives a
number of examples of planning, all of which, in my judgement suggest a
Regular, Level 3.
I asked myself whether there is an Occasional Planning/Coordinating at
Level 4 to this position? I have concluded that there is not. The "best fit"
principle leads me to conclude that Planning/Coordinating is properly rated
at Level 3.
4. Planning/Coordinating
Level 3
56 Points
6. Independence of Action
This factor measures the level of independence or autonomy in the
position.
The College has rated this factor Level 3: "Position duties are completed
according to general processes. Decisions are made following general
guidelines to determine how tasks should be completed".
15
The Union proposes Level 5: "Position duties are completed according to
broad goals or objectives. Decisions are made using College policies".
The P.D.F. describes the position in this way: "The incumbent works
independently following established co-op guidelines". It is clear that the
Job Centre Consultants function independently in their day-to-day
activities, although there is general supervision from within the Job Centre
(currently by Mr. AI Ersser).
The evidence of Mr. Jarvis confirmed that the Job Centre Consultants
function in a highly independent way in their day-to~day activities.
However, their actual decisions are governed by a combination of College
policies and co-op education "best practices". In any unusual case (e.g.
the sexual harassment case, mentioned earlier) the Supervisor would
immediately be involved. It is instructive in that case that all subsequent
correspondence was dealt with by Mr. Vanderveken, not by the Job
Centre Consultant.
I asked Mr. Jarvis what situations he would take to his Supervisor? He
replied: "Any issue with a student that we could not resolve, that might be
an academic issue, an exemption from a certain requirement, and so on".
16
On the basis of both the P.D.F., and the evidence before me, I am
satisfied that Independence of Action is correctly rated at Level 3.
6. Independence of Action
Level 3
78 Points
7. Service Delivery
This factor looks at the service relationship that is an assigned
requirement of the position. It considers the required manner in which the
position delivers service to customers and not the incumbent's
interpersonal relationship with those customers.
The College has rated this factor Level 3 (51 Points): "Tailor service
based on developing a full understanding of the customer's needs".
The Union proposes a Level 4 rating (73 Points): "Anticipate customer
requirements and pro-actively deliver service".
The P.D.F. (Exhibit 3) gives three (3) examples of daily service which a
Job Centre Consultant provides:
(1) Assisting students with resume, cover letter or mock interview;
17
(2) Discussing job po stings with an employer;
(3) Calls from employers to set up interviews.
A weekly example provided of services was when a faculty member
contacts a Job Centre Consultant to discuss some aspect of the co-
op program.
In my judgement, all of these examples fit comfortably within Level 3.
The core of the Job Centre Consultant position is providing quality service
to students and their employers through the co-op program. This means
that the Consultant must understand the needs of both students and
employers, and must tailor his/her service to those needs. This is a
classic Level 3 position.
The evidence of both Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Vanderveken were, in my opinion,
consistent with a Level 3 rating.
7. Service Delivery
Level 3
51 Points
18
8. Communication
This factor measures the communication skills required by the position,
both verbal and written.
The College has rated this factor at Level 4: "Communication involves
explaining and/or interpreting information to instruct, train and/or gain the
cooperation of others".
The Union proposes a rating at Level 5: "Communication involves
imparting information in order to obtain agreement, where interests may
diverge, and/or negotiation skills to resolve complex situations".
The Communication section of the P.D.F. (Exhibit 3) contains nothing that
would suggest a level beyond Level 4.
However, there are two (2) idiosyncratic points that emerged from the oral
evidence that have led me to add an Occasional rating of 5 to the Regular
rating of 4. These points are:
(1) In the spring of 2007 Mohawk College eliminated four (4) faculty
positions that had formerly taught the Co-op Preparation Program
(CPP). This was, and remains, a mandatory program for students
19
entering the Mohawk co-op program. Although class attendance is
no longer mandatory, the evidence was that approximately eighty-
five percent (85%) of students do attend the classes taught now by
the Job Centre Consultants. The students who do not attend can
obtain the material on-line. Since 2007 this teaching (a five (5)
week compressed program at the beginning of each term) has been
assigned to the Job Centre Consultants on a rotational basis, This
occasional teaching requirement, in my view, warrants an
Occasional rating at Level 5.
(2) There can be a negotiations component to the resolution of
student/employer issues. This is recognized in the P.D.F. (under
Analysis and Problem Solving) as follows: ".,. the incumbent must
respond quickly to the situations using a high degree of analysis,
judgment, use of mediation and facilitation techniques in order for
the outcome to be satisfactory for the parties involved".
I am satisfied that these two (2) functions warrant an Occasional
Communication rating at Level 5.
8. Communication
Regular Level 4
Occasional Level 5
110 Points
9 Points
10. AudioNisual Effort
This factor measures audio/visual effort, specifically considering the
degree of focus or attention required.
The College has rated this factor at Level 2 (Focus Maintained).
The Union has rated this at Level 3 (Focus Interrupted).
Suffice to say that nothing in the P.D.F., nor in the evidence of either
witness, persuaded me that the College's rating Level 2 (20 points) is in
error.
10. AudioNisual Effort
Level 2
20 Points
I have completed and appended my Arbitration Data Sheet.
For the reasons given, the grievance is allowed. The incumbents are to
be reclassified at Level K, 702 points.
I remain seized to deal with any issue which may arise in the
implementation of this Award,
20
21
Dated at the City of St. Thomas this (s/laay of .{~//J.~~ ,2010.
, ,.
Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification
College: Mohawk Incumbent: Kelly Bates ef al Supervisor: AI Ersser
Current Payband: ---.J_ Payband Requested by Grievor: l
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: X The Union The College
factor Manaaement Union Arbitrator
Regularl Regularl Regularl
Recurring Occasional Recurring Occasional Recurring Occasional
level Points level Points level Points level Points level Points level Points
1A. Education 4 48 5 61 5 61
18. Education 3 21 3 21 3 21
2. Experience 5 69 5 69 5 69
3. Analysis and
Problem Solving 4 110 5 142 4 110
4. Planning!
Coordinating 2 32 3 7 4 80 3 56
5. GUidingl
Advising Others 5 53 5 53 5 53
6. Independence
of Action 3 78 5 142 3 78
7. Service Delivery 3 51 4 73 3 51
8. Communication 4 110 5 142 4 110 5 9
9. Physical Effort 2 26 2 26 2 26
10. AudioNlsual Effort 2 20 3 50 2 20
11. Working
Environment 2 38 2 38 2 38
Subtotals (a) 656 (b) 7 (a) 897 (b) 0 (a) 693 (b) 9
Total Points (a) + (b) 663 897 702
Resulting Payband J L K