HomeMy WebLinkAboutTrace 11-05-02
. \'
IN THE MA ITER OF AN ARBITRA nON
between
Georgian College
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Local 349)
Classification Grievance of Pam Trace - Grievance # 227-0349-0027
Before:
Louis M. Tenace
For the Union:
Pam Trace (Grievor)
Jillian Peacock (Local 349)
For the College:
Maryann Fifield (Dean) Academic)
Joyce Goheen (Human Resouces Consultant)
Angela Cicino (Human Resources Consultant)
Heaulat London, Ontario, April 26, 20 I ]
2
A WARD
The grievor, Pam Trace) is an Academic Officer) General Education and
Communications Specialist) employed at Georgian College in the General Arts and
Science and Aboriginal Studies Programs.
She has been an employee of the College since 1990 and is currently at the payband H
level. She is seeking the reclassification of her position to pay band I level. The Position
Description Form (POP) is not in dispute. The grievor is seeking a re-evallltion of the
point rating of her PDF with respect to the following factors:
Factor 3 - Analysis and Problem Solving
Factor 4 - Planning/Coordinating
Factor 8 ~ Communication
In the course of discussion during the hearing, the grievor indicated that she accepted the
College)s point rating for Factor 4 (Planning/Coordinating) and withdrew her claim in
that regard. We are left to consider Factors 3 and 8.
The PDF states in the Position summary that the grievor "is responsible for the academic
planning and administrative duties related to the delivery of the General Arts and Science
and Aboriginal Studies programs. This ineludes the S WF/Loading/scheduling process)
the budget process, data management, and interfacing with other Academic Officers,
Deans, Coordinators) Faculty, staff, and others who are external to the College. The
Communications and General Education specialisfs primary responsibility is for a wide
range of administrative duties related to delivering College~wide General Education and
Communications courses for all programs on the BalTie Campus."
It should be noted that there are some eleven other Academic Officers employed at the
College and all are classified at the same level as the grievor.
I turn now to the Factors in dispute.
Factor 3 - Analysis and Problem solvin!!:
College rating - Regular and Recurring - Level 3, 78 points;
Occasional - Level 4, 9 points
Union Rating - Regular and Recurring - Level 4, 110 points
The Job Evaluation Manual (JEM, hereinafter referred to as the Manual) defines this
factor as follows:
3
Thisfactor measures the level of complexity involved in analyzing situations,
i1l(ormation or problems of valJ1ing levels of difficulty; and in developing
options, solutions 01' other actions.
In the Notes to Raters, the Manual states for Level 3 and 4 as follows:
3. Situations and problems are identifiable, but may requireful'ther inqubJI
in order to define them precisely. Solutions require the CInalysis and
collection ofh?formation, some of which may be obtainedji'om areas or
resources which are 110t normally used by the position.
4. Situalions and problems are not readily identifiable and often require
further investigalion and research. Solutions require Ihe intel1Jrelalion
and analysis of a range of il?(ormation according to established techniques
and/or principles
It goes on to define established techniques and/or principles as
recognized guidelines and/or methods to accomplish a desired outcome. Can
be de,fined as an individualized way afusing lools andfollowing rules in
doing somelhing; in professions, the IeI'm is llsed to mean a systematic
procedure to accomplish a task.
The College contends that the problems occu1'I'ing related to this position are readily
identifiable and are quite straight~forward. While they may require further investigation)
the steps followed are sequential and do not involve using established techniques as
described in the Manual. The position is driven by process and the problems are
predictable with limited decision-making options. The College contends further that the
grievor is able to analyze and solve problems because of her significant knowledge and
past experience with the College. Nevertheless) the College believes that this position is
really not much different from that of the other Academic Officers and that the rating for
this factor should remain unchanged. The College believes that in according an
Occasional rating of Level 4 and 9 points, this would compensate for any differences
The Union contends that the problems are neither straight-forward nor easily identifiable.
They covel' a very broad range and require interpretation. The position also deals with
fully-integrated parHime students which is a complicating factor. The Union contends
that the grievor is the only one of the Academic Officers who has a broad system-wide
responsibility. While she does not supervise or direct the work of the other Academic
Officers, she must obtain and analyze updates from them as well as from the scheduling
people and the Registrar's office.
There is little doubt in my mind that the grievor does use established techniques and/or
principlcs in her work even though these may not be the same as some of the more
formalized, established techniques of analysis and problem-solving as employed in
certain professional and other spheres of work.
4
After due consideration of the submissions of the parties and a review of the PDF, It is
my view that the Union's rating for this factor must be upheld. It seems clear to me that
the duties of this position are not being given sufficient weight visMaMvis this factor. The
position requires more than simple information gathering from different sources and then
assembling this into a comprehensive report. The incumbent forecasts the number of
sections of certain courses that are required and must work around students' existing
timetables; must follow College-wide principles of scheduling and ensure compliance
with the collective agreement; must enSl11'e that sections offered are efficient from a
costing perspective as well as implement finalized sectioning with scheduling. It is my
view that the grievor)s duties as outlined in the PDP and as explained during the course
of the hearing fall within the requirements of the Manual for Level 4) Regular and
Recurring for this factor. In my view, the according of an occasional Level 4 rating as
proposed by the College does not provide a true pictl11'e. It was also made clear during the
hearing that the continuing) propel' performance of all of the duties of this position are of
critical importance to the College.
The factor Analysis and Pl'Oblem Solving should be ratcd at Levcl4, Regular and
Recurring, 110 points.
Factor 8 - Communication
College Rating - Regular and Recurring - Level 3, 78 points
Occasional ~ Level 4, 9 points
Union Rating - Regular and Recurring - Level 4, 110 points
The Manual defines this factor as follows:
Thisfactor measures the communication skill required by the position, both verbal ami
written and includes:
communication to provide advice, guidance, infol'mation or training
interaction to manage neces.\'(f1Jl transactions
interpersonal skills to obtain and maintain commitment and ltlfluence
the actions of others
The Level 3 definition in the Manual states that Communication involves e.\plaining
and/or interpreting infol'mation to secure understanding. A1ay involve communicating
technical infiJrmation and advice. The Level 4 definition states that Communication
involves explaining and/or intelpreting b?formation to instruct, train and/or gain the
cooperation of others.
5
The Manual goes on to define the words "instruct'~ and "train)) as follows:
Instruct - to give knowledge or provide authoritative information within a formal setting
such as a workshop 01' lab environment.
Train - impart knowledge and/or demonstrate skills within a formal instructional setting.
The College submits that the grievor explains information and processes on a daily and/or
weekly basis to other staff both within her academic area and across the College with a
view to achieving a particular outcome or to resolve specific issues.
The College acknowledges that the grievor did provide training to the other Academic
Officers as a group but this activity~ on its own, did not occur frequently enough to be
considered "occasionaP'. The grievor also recommended a new teature in Banner which
would improve the planning and registration process. This involved obtaining the
cooperation or consent of the Scheduling and Information Technology Managers to
modify the system. Again~ in the College's view) this activity did not on its own meet the
frequency required to be considered as "occasional". Nevertheless, the College
determined that combining the two activities just described merits an "Occasional~) rating
of Level 4, 9 points.
The Union submits that the incumbent must work with the other Academic Officers,
Deans, Coordinators and Faculty to coordinate the planning and scheduling and setup of
the General Education and Communication courses. The Union contends that she sets up
the templates to assist her in gathering the information that is required and that she
instructs the other Academic Officers in their completion. Further, she works with faculty
and other staff to gain their cooperation in meeting the needs of the college-wide
schedule. It submits that the factor should be rated at Level 4~ 110 points.
The Colleges rating for this factor as well as the Union)s proposed rating both cause me
some difficulty. Clearly) the evidence presented, including the PDF~ demonstrate that the
rating for this factor should be something more than Level 3, Regular and Recurring) 78
points. The College contends that it has recognized this very fact by allocating the
position with an "Occasional)) rating of Level 4~ 9 points. The Union, on the other hand,
contends that the duties of the position go well beyond those of the other Academic
Officel's~ that this position brings together and/or synthesizes and coordinates the work of
all Academic Officers. The grievor also pointed out that the PDF contains a reference to
"Negotiating" which pl'Ovides un example of the duties of the position to "Represent
call1pus~wide needs of General Education and the needs of the Liberal Art! Aboriginal
Studies pOlifolio to Scheduling department; provide solutions to issues, and request
changes which fulfill the needs or resolve conflicts with respect to
load i ng/sched uling/timetab ling').
6
Based on the evidence presented) I am unable to conclude unequivocally, that one
position or the other is the correct one. I am therefore left with a "best fifl solution.
In these circumstances, I believe that I must opt for the CoIlege's position which does
recognize something more than the regular and recurring aspects of certain duties.
The College~s rating of Level 3, 78 points (Regulal' and Recurring) and Level 4, 9
points (Occasional) stands.
The only change to point rating is with respect to Factor 3 (Analysis and problem
Solving) )which will move from Level 3, 78 points (Regular and Recurring) and Level 4)
9 points (Occasional) to Level 4, 110 points.
The total points for this position will now be 599 points, which situates it a Level I
(Point Range 580-639).
In the light of my findings and what I have outlined above, I believe it would be in the
interests of the parties to meet and re-examine the POP for this position with a view to
making the necessary modifications so that it better reflects the duties being performed.
Signed in Ottawa, this 2nd day of May, 2011
Louis M. Tenace (Arbitrator)
Arbitration Data Sheet - Support Staff Classification
.College: 6eo(JiOJ1
Current Payband' H
Incumbent: Pam 7f-a c<-. Supervisor' rr?ar;yOl?n -Fifldd...
Payband Requested by Grlevor: I
1. Concerning the attached Position Description Form:
,/' The parties agreed on the contents 0 The Union dIsagrees wIth the contents and the
specific details are attached.
2. The attached Written SubmissIon Is from: 0 The Union / The College
1 B. Education
2. Experience
3. AnalysIs and Problem
SolvIng
4. Planning/CoordinatIng
5. GuIding/AdvIsing Others
,~-, 6. Independence of Action
7. Servlce Delivery
8. Commu nlcatlon
9. PhysIcal Effort
10. Audlo/Vlsual Effort
1 L Working Environment
Subtotals (a)
Total Points (a) + (b)
ReSUlting PaVband
/-sJg:!res~-
-ltMlt1 jvVaqJ f/
(~rrevor) (oat ) ege Representallve)
(1 fitrAdJ .;JAk#l~ ~jj' o?~ r;
I~ nlon Repres~ve}, (Da
V 1. ~ II liE. b"}.t)(( 11
(Date OfTL~~)
a. l/0f
~