HomeMy WebLinkAboutGoossens 11-12-19
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
Fanshawe College
(“the College”)
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 109
(“the Union”)
Grievance of Harold Goossens #710939
ARBITRATOR: Mary Lou Tims
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE COLLEGE: Jay Henry, Human Resources Consultant
Julie McQuire, Human Resources Consultant
Wayne Sippola, Assistant Manager
Mechanical/Electrical Systems
FOR THE UNION: Ron Kelly, Chief Steward Classifications
Harold Goossens, Grievor
Margaret Rae, President, Local 109
Hearing held in London on November 30, 2011.
AWARD
The grievor, Mr. Harold Goossens, holds the position of Electrician with
Fanshawe College. His March 14, 2007 grievance alleges that his position is improperly
classified at Payband G and seeks reclassification to Payband I and compensation
retroactive to March 1, 2007. The College agreed that if compensation is payable
pursuant to this Award, it should be paid retroactively to such date. Since the filing of the
grievance, the position of Electrician has been reevaluated at Payband H.
There were no objections regarding the arbitrability of the grievance or my
jurisdiction to determine it.
In accordance with the collective agreement, both parties filed Briefs in advance
of the hearing. In addition, the grievor testified for the Union and Mr. Wayne Sippola,
Assistant Manager, Mechanical/Electrical Systems to whom the grievor reports, gave
evidence for the College. The parties’ Briefs and submissions were of much assistance
and I thank them.
A May 2011 Performance Description Form (“the PDF”) relating to the grievor’s
position was entered in evidence. The Union did not contest its accuracy, but suggested
that additional examples reflecting the higher ratings sought before me were omitted and
warrant consideration.
In addition, although the rating of Education (1A and 1B) is not in dispute, the
Union asked that I order that the grievor’s PDF be amended to state that a First Aid
Certificate and a Driver’s Licence are required. Assuming without finding that it is open
to me to amend the PDF as requested, I was advised of no purpose in making such Order
in these circumstances and I decline to do so.
The rating of the following factors is contested:
2
• Analysis and Problem Solving
• Planning/Coordinating
• Guiding/Advising Others
• Independence of Action
• Service Delivery
• Communication
• Audio/Visual Effort
The “overall purpose” of the position of Electrician is described in summary form
in the PDF as follows:
Under the general direction of the Manager, provides electrical installation
and maintenance services for all electrical systems across the College.
The “significant duties and responsibilities associated with the position” are
described as follows:
• Performs troubleshooting and repairs on motors, electrical power outlets
and controls. Modifies existing lighting and power services. Maintains
existing electrical equipment including emergency lighting systems, parking
equipment, fire alarm systems - 74%
• Completes major electrical renovation projects including the installation of
equipment and services. - 10%
• Prepares layout of equipment and services from general information
provided on work orders or drawings and produces detailed estimates and
schedules necessary to complete project. Provides assistance to other trades
people and contractors. - 5%
• Reviews completed work with Ontario Hydro inspectors who do random
checks to verify code compliance. - 4%
• Assists with emergencies such as fire. Contributes electrical expertise as a
member of the Emergency Response Team. - 5%
3
• Performs other related duties including (but not limited to) hvac filter
changing and ceiling tile replacement. - 2%
ANALYSIS AND PROBLEM SOLVING
The College rated this factor at level 3, regular and recurring. The Union did not
challenge such rating, but argued that an occasional level 4 rating should also be
assigned.
The Support Staff Job Evaluation Manual (“the Manual”) defines levels 3 and 4
Analysis and Problem Solving as follows:
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.
Level 4 – 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 PDF contains examples of occasional Analysis and Problem Solving. The
Union acknowledged that such examples do not reflect level 4 Analysis and Problem
Solving. It suggested, however, that consideration of additional duties and responsibilities
not included in the PDF demonstrates that an occasional level 4 rating is warranted.
The Union and the grievor focussed on the Electrician’s role in responding to
unscheduled power interruptions and after hours “call ins” to address alarms, fire alarm
trouble or power outages. There was no dispute that such situations arise at any hour of
any day, including during regularly scheduled hours of work.
Mr. Sippola accepted that the position is called upon to address the sorts of
problems described by the Union at least one to three times each week, although the
grievor believed that this occurs more frequently. Both the grievor and Mr. Sippola
4
acknowledged that such issues may be routine in nature and dealt with quickly or may be
more involved and time consuming to address.
The grievor described steps he takes in dealing with a power outage. The problem
is reported to the Control Centre. The grievor inspects the electrical distribution system
to determine the source of the failure. He determines if any components need to be
replaced and if power can be safely restored. The grievor specifically addressed a power
interruption experienced in “B” Building. He explained that he had to determine the
source of the failure. A breaker tripped and he had to trace the circuits to find out why.
The grievor further described a problem encountered in “M” Building involving a
700 amp breaker. He described the need to “brainstorm” leading to a solution involving
the manipulation of breakers.
The grievor gave evidence regarding alarm problems, and noted that the system
signals the existence of a problem and identifies the relevant zone. He visually inspects
the area to determine the root of the problem more precisely, and if such exercise is not
fruitful, he takes the system apart to find it.
Both parties agreed that the Electrician uses his education and experience and
works in compliance with applicable safety codes and College standards in addressing
such situations. They further agreed that problems are solved through a systematic
process of elimination.
The Union suggested that although the “symptoms” of problems encountered by
the Electrician are “identifiable,” the “problems” themselves are not. In the Union’s
submission, the Electrician must troubleshoot to identify the “root problem.” While the
Union noted that the grievor may receive his work assignment by way of written work
order, it emphasized that the manner in which work is assigned does not speak to the
5
analytical and problem solving role he is required to play in performing the task ordered.
The Union argued as well that level 3 Analysis and Problem Solving involves reliance on
information obtained from “areas or resources . . . not normally used by the position.” It
suggested that the Electrician does not rely upon such sources, but rather interprets
information according to “established techniques and principles” as defined in the
Manual.
The College in response took the position that the problems described by the
Union are “identifiable” and that the solution of such problems involves a systematic
process of elimination best captured by the level 3 definition.
I am of the view that the examples relied upon by the Union reflect level 3
Analysis and Problem Solving. I agree with the College that the situations described by
the Union involve problems that are “identifiable” although they may “require further
inquiry in order to define them precisely.” The Electrician may be faced, by way of
example, with the problem of a power interruption. While he takes steps to more
precisely define the issue, the problem itself is best characterized in my view as
“identifiable.” In solving problems, the evidence is clear that the Electrician relies on his
knowledge and experience, and acts in accordance with safety codes and College
standards to systematically engage in a process of elimination. Although I accept the
Union’s argument that the evidence does not establish a need for the Electrician to use
information which “may be obtained from areas or resources . . . not normally used,”
nor does it establish in my view, problem solving beyond the scope of level 3 “analysis
and collection of information.”
The evidence relied upon by the Union in support of its claim for a higher
occasional rating reflects an analytical and problem solving role very similar to that
6
described by the regular and recurring examples set out in the PDF which have attracted
an undisputed level 3 rating. As noted above, the Union emphasized the need for the
grievor to deal with the problems addressed above on a “call in” basis in seeking a higher
occasional rating. The nature of the analytical and problem solving task, however, was
not proven to be any different when performed on such basis as opposed to during regular
hours.
The Union’s claim for an occasional level 4 rating is denied and the College’s
rating of this factor at level 3, regular and recurring, is confirmed.
PLANNING/COORDINATING
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. The Union did not
contest such rating, but took the position that a level 3, occasional rating is also
warranted.
Levels 2 and 3 Planning/Coordinating are defined in the Manual as follows:
2. Plan/coordinate activities and resources to complete own work and
achieve overlapping deadlines.
3. Plan/coordinate activities, information or material to enable completion
of tasks and events, which affect the work schedule of other employees.
The Manual defines “other employees” to include “full-time, part-time, students,
contractors.” “Affect” is defined to mean “to produce a material influence upon or
alteration in.” The Notes to Raters state that this factor “refers to the organizational
and/or project management skills required to bring together and integrate activities and
resources needed to complete tasks or organize events.”
The PDF includes as an occasional example the position’s role in coordinating
multi-day installation projects and repairs, and notes that some projects “involve
7
organizing the contributions of contractors and/or other College electricians.” By way of
example, the grievor gave evidence of a study conducted by Power Core and noted that
he provided the contractor with information regarding the electrical distribution system
and regarding where and when power could be shut down.
The Union suggested that the grievor’s work relating to the yearly power outage
preventative maintenance inspection also reflects occasional level 3 Planning and
Coordinating. The grievor described his planning and coordinating role in this area,
noting that he took certain steps such as bringing in generators before power could be
shut off.
He described his assigned task of labelling the electrical distribution system. He
noted that power had to be shut off in performing such work, and that the impact of the
power interruption on teachers and students was considered.
The grievor gave further evidence that Electricians are asked by other College
tradespeople to shut off or restore power, affecting their ability to safely perform work.
Mr. Sippola acknowledged that the grievor is a “great resource” to contractors in
various circumstances, sharing his knowledge of the College’s electrical system. When
contractors such as Rondar and Power Core are retained by the College, however, Mr.
Sippola stated that the contractors bear responsibility for the projects for which they are
retained and take direction from a management team.
Mr. Sippola accepted that the grievor works with other College tradespeople. He
spoke by way of example of a Boiler assignment, and noted the need for the various
trades involved to “work around” each other’s schedules. He agreed with the grievor that
other trades call upon the Electricians as required to shut down or restore power.
8
The grievor accepted the College’s suggestion that he acts as a resource to the
contractor conducting the year end shutdown. He suggested that his planning and
coordinating role goes beyond this, however, where problems are encountered.
In the Union’s submission, the grievor occasionally plans and coordinates at level
3 as defined. It suggested that he meets with contractors and lays out work they are to
perform. The Union relied as well on the fact that the Electrician works with other
College tradespeople.
In the College’s submission, although the grievor offers assistance to contractors
and works with other tradespeople in certain circumstances, he does not engage in level 3
Planning and Coordinating. The College emphasized that contractors are responsible for
the planning and coordination of projects which they are retained to undertake, and the
grievor acts as a resource to them. Where various trades are required to work
cooperatively, this does not in itself, in the College’s view, reflect the higher level
planning function suggested by the Union.
I am not convinced that an occasional level 3 rating is warranted here. It is clear
from the evidence that the Electrician works cooperatively with other tradespeople in
various circumstances, and acts as a resource to contractors. The evidence does not
demonstrate, however, that the position plays a planning and coordinating role beyond
that contemplated by the level 2 factor definition. Specifically, I did not see in the
examples relied upon by the Union planning or coordinating to enable task completion
which materially influences or alters the work schedule of others as contemplated by the
level 3 factor definition.
The Union’s claim for an occasional level 3 rating is denied and the College’s
rating of this factor at level 2, regular and recurring, is confirmed.
9
GUIDING/ADVISING OTHERS
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. The Union did not
dispute such rating, but took the position that an occasional level 3 rating is also
warranted.
The Manual defines levels 2 and 3 Guiding/Advising Others as follows:
2. Guide others so they can complete specific tasks.
3. Advise others to enable them to perform their day-to-day activities.
“Guide” is defined as “demonstrates correct processes/procedures for the purpose
of assisting others with skill development and/or task completion.” “Advise,” according
to the Manual, means, “has the authority to recommend, or provide knowledgeable
direction, regarding a decision or course of action.”
The grievor is a certified Fire Alarm Technician. He gave evidence that during
fire drills, he demonstrates to supervisory staff the correct process for reading and
operating the fire alarm system. He described that he meets the designated person at the
fire alarm panel located at the front of a building. He demonstrates what button should be
pressed to reset the system, how to read what the panel is indicating regarding the
location of a fire, and how to take the system “out of alarm.”
The grievor testified as well that his manager, Mr. Sippola, is not an electrician.
According to the grievor, given his own expertise in “electrical issues” he “brainstorms”
with Mr. Sippola and tells him how to solve problems. He described a situation during a
shutdown when a breaker failed to trip when expected. The grievor stated that he
“worked through” the problem and gave his thoughts to his manager.
10
The PDF includes as a regular and recurring example of Guiding/Advising that
the Electrician “provides guidance to assisting General Maintenance Technicians with
semi-skilled maintenance related tasks where required.” The grievor testified that
Technicians are not licensed Electricians and that when they assist in his work, he ensures
that work is done according to Code standards and that “everything is safe.” He
described that he guides Technicians through their job. More specifically, he indicated
that he may tell them where to put a ladder when changing a light bulb or might give
safety related guidance. The grievor testified as well that other tradespeople may on
occasion act as General Maintenance workers, but that he remains responsible for
electrical work in such circumstances.
The PDF also states that the Electrician on a regular and recurring basis assists
“contractors in understanding schematics, particularly when documentation appears
incomplete or out of date.” The grievor gave evidence that contractors such as Rondar
and Power Core may only have available to them drawings that are out of date or
incomplete, and that it is his role through the information he conveys to “be their
drawings.”
Mr. Sippola testified that although all staff responds to fire alarms, the grievor as
a Fire Alarm Technician plays a “more critical role” in doing so because of his training.
He testified that the grievor goes to the information panel at the front of a building and
demonstrates what buttons are to be pushed.
Mr. Sippola acknowledged that the grievor offered him assistance with respect to
a matter involving a breaker, communicating to him that “they had a bit of time” before
the problem became a safety issue.
11
Mr. Sippola accepted that the grievor may work with General Maintenance
Workers and with other tradespeople acting as General Maintenance Workers. He
described that General Maintenance Workers in such circumstances act as “extra hands,”
and that a routine exchange of facts is required. Mr. Sippola was clear that the grievor in
such circumstances does not, for example, teach a plumber how to install an electrical
service, but rather may direct the individual assigned to assist him to “pass up the light
bulb.”
In the Union’s submission, the grievor engages in level 3 Guiding/Advising
Others where he demonstrates the workings of the fire alarm panel, provides guidance to
his manager where technical expertise is required, and advises and guides contractors and
General Maintenance Workers.
The College argued that the grievor “demonstrates correct processes” within the
meaning of the level 2 factor definition when he assists with the fire alarm panel. It
further took the position that the grievor does not advise others so as to enable them to
perform their daily activities, but rather, offers guidance so that “specific tasks” can be
completed.
I am of the view that the College’s rating of this factor should be confirmed.
Although one would expect that the grievor’s expertise as a certified Fire Alarm
Technician is invaluable to the College, the role the grievor described in assisting
designated individuals at the fire alarm panel very clearly fits within the level 2 definition
as the demonstration of “correct processes/procedures” for the purpose of “task
completion.” Similarly, while the evidence is clear that the grievor works at times with
General Maintenance Workers or with other tradespeople acting as General Maintenance
Workers, his role is well described in such instances as guiding others so they can
12
complete specific tasks within the level 2 definition. The grievor is also undoubtedly
helpful to contractors where drawings are outdated or incomplete. The evidence does not
in such circumstances, however, establish that he recommends or provides
knowledgeable direction regarding a decision or course of action enabling contractors to
perform their day to day activities. Finally, while the evidence established that the
grievor was of assistance to his manager, Mr. Sippola, I cannot conclude on the basis of
the example offered that he advises his manager so as to enable Mr. Sippola to perform
his day to day activities within the meaning of the level 3 definition.
The Union’s claim for an occasional level 3 rating is denied and the College’s
rating of this factor at level 2, regular and recurring, is confirmed.
INDEPENDENCE OF ACTION
The College rated this factor at level 3, regular and recurring. The Union took the
position that it should be rated at level 4, regular and recurring.
The Manual defines levels 3 and 4 Independence of Action 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.
The Manual further defines “guideline” as “a statement of policy or principle by
which to determine a course of action.” A “process,” according to the Manual, is “a
series of activities, changes or functions to achieve a result.” “Industry practice” is
defined as a “technical or theoretical method and/or process generally agreed upon and
used by practitioners to maintain standards and quality across a range of organizations
and settings.”
13
The Notes to Raters are of assistance. They state as follows:
This factor measures the level of independence or autonomy in the
position. The following elements should be considered:
- the types of decisions that the position makes
- what aspects of the tasks are decided by the position on its own or
what is decided by, or in consultation with, someone else, such as the
supervisor
- the rules, procedures, past practice and guidelines that are available to
provide guidance and direction
The Notes further explain as follows:
Level 3 – specific results or objectives that must be accomplished are pre-
determined by others. The position has the ability to select the process(es)
to achieve the end result, usually with the assistance of general guidelines.
The position has the autonomy to make decisions within these parameters.
Level 4 – 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. The position has the autonomy to act within
these boundaries and would only need to consult with the supervisor (or
others) on issues that were outside these parameters.
The PDF states that “work orders and maintenance projects with details of issues
and goals are issued prior to any work undertaken.” There was no dispute between the
parties that the Electrician’s work is assigned through work orders, and a number of
examples were included in the parties’ Briefs. It is fair to say that such work orders at the
very least generally set out the nature of the work assigned. A work order included in the
Union’s Brief, for example, simply describes a need for “electrical equipment repair,”
with a request to “investigate.” Some work orders are more detailed in the instructions
provided. A work order included in the College’s Brief, for example describes the
“issue” to be “no power – receptacle, podium” and instructs “Please install missing
electrical ships in B1071 and B1030. Prior to installing the cover back on, ensure the
14
cord part of the whip is affixed to the raceway or some means under the cover, so as the
occupants cannot merely unplug and take the whip.”
The Union acknowledged that work may be assigned to the Electrician through
work orders. It took the position, however, that such assignments do not specify how
decisions are to be made and work is to be performed. In the Union’s submission, the
Electrician operates independently, making necessary decisions through adherence with
safety codes such as the Ontario Building Code and the Ontario Fire Code, and with
College Safety Operating Procedures. In the Union’s submission, the Electrician does not
make required decisions in the course of his work following “general guidelines” as
contemplated by the level 3 factor definition. Rather, the Union argued, such decisions
are made using “industry practices and/or departmental policies” within the meaning of
the level 4 definition. The admitted fact that the Electrician requires approval on
purchasing materials over a certain dollar amount does not, in the Union’s view, detract
from the level 4 Independence of Action required of the position.
The College accepted that tradespeople work in accordance with applicable safety
codes and agreed that such governing codes are properly characterized as “industry
practice” within the level 4 definition.
It emphasized, however, that the Notes to Raters state that level 4 Independence
of Action is the proper rating where “the only parameters or constraints that are in place
to guide the position’s decision-making” are industry practices or departmental policies.
In the College’s submission, industry practices or departmental policies are not the only
constraints on the decision making role of the Electrician position. The College stated in
its Brief that the following “parameters” also “guide the position’s decision making:”
Work orders are prioritized and distributed by the Supervisor
15
Daily job tasks are assigned by supervisor
Work orders include work instructions/details to guide how the job
is to be completed (i.e. in addition to following relevant electrical
code(s), the incumbent also has instructions and guidance provided
to complete the task)
Incumbent requires approval on purchasing materials over a certain
dollar amount
Incumbent must follow any established standard operating
procedures for completion of tasks
The College’s representative described a hypothetical work order directing the
Electrician to install a plug on a particular wall in a specified room. The College
accepted that the Electrician is required to perform such work according to safety codes.
If, however, the Electrician determined that the installation of the plug as instructed
would not be code compliant, it would not be open to him to simply choose to install it
elsewhere. Rather, the Electrician would report to his supervisor and await revised
instructions. In the College’s submission, such Independence of Action best fits the level
3 definition.
The Union, in response, suggested that acceptance of the College’s position would
in effect mean that level 4 Independence of Action is not required in any position. It
emphasized that the assignment of work by way of work orders in no way diminishes the
independence required of the Electrician in making the decisions required in the
performance of his duties.
I am of the view that this factor is best rated at level 4, regular and recurring. I
recognize that the grievor generally receives his work assignments by way of work order,
and that these can be more or less specific in the level of instruction provided. The PDF
reflects as well that “work orders issued will generally indicate priority,”
(Planning/Coordinating), although it states in the same section that the “incumbent can
prioritize own work orders.” There is no doubt that the Electrician also has constraints
16
upon him when purchasing materials over a certain value. There was, however, no
dispute between the parties that the Electrician is expected to perform his work in
accordance with applicable safety codes, which both parties acknowledged constitute
“industry practice” within the level 4 factor definition. The PDF states in this regard that
“the incumbent generally organizes and undertakes assignments independently, within
the College’s health and safety policies and Ontario electrical code requirements. Past
Practice.”
In my view, it is not possible to say that an Electrician makes decisions in the
performance of his work following “general guidelines” within the level 3 definition. I
accept that work orders define at some level the nature of an assignment. Despite this,
however, I am also satisfied that industry practice guides the Electrician’s decision
making where he executes such work assignment. Consideration of the level 4 definition
in its entirety leads me to conclude that level 4 best reflects the Independence of Action
associated with the Electrician position.
I order the College to amend the rating of this factor to level 4, regular and
recurring.
SERVICE DELIVERY
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. Such rating was not
contested by the Union. It took the position, however, that a level 3, occasional rating is
also warranted.
According to the Manual, level 2 Service Delivery is defined as follows:
Provide service according to specifications by selecting the best method of
delivering service.
Level 3 Service Delivery is defined as follows:
17
Tailor service based on developing a full understanding of the customer’s
needs.
The Notes to Raters are instructive and state in part as follows:
Level 2 – service is provided by determining which option would best suit
the needs of the customer. The incumbent must know all of the options
available and be able to explain them to the customer. The incumbent
selects or recommends the best option based on the customer’s need.
There is no, or limited, ability for the incumbent to change the options. . . .
Level 3 refers to the need to “tailor service.” This means that in order for
the position to provide the right type of service, he/she must ask questions
to develop an understanding of the customer’s situation. The customer’s
request must be understood thoroughly. Based on this understanding, the
position is then able to customize the way the service is delivered or
substantially modify what is delivered so that it suits the customer’s
particular circumstances.
“Tailor” is defined in the Manual as “to modify or adapt with special attention in
order to customize it to a specific requirement.”
The Union took the position that the grievor is required to respond to after hours
calls on both the main campus and satellite campuses to deal with fire alarms, alarm
problems and power outages. It emphasized the need for the grievor to provide a “rapid
response” to such calls and suggested that an occasional level 3 rating should on this
basis be assigned.
The College noted that the parties have agreed that service is delivered on a
regular and recurring basis at level 2. It suggested that the fact that the same service is
sometimes delivered after hours does not change the nature of the service itself, and does
not require the “tailoring” of service as defined.
I agree with the College. While the evidence is clear that the grievor is called
upon to occasionally deliver service after hours in the sorts of situations addressed above,
the fact that such service is delivered outside of regular hours does not by itself alter its
18
nature. The PDF reflects that the Electrician attends to reported “problems/malfunctions”
and “determines the appropriate method and materials to carry out work.” The Union did
not dispute the College’s level 2 regular and recurring rating of this factor. The evidence
does not substantiate that the grievor is required to deliver service at a higher level when
he similarly attends to problems outside of regular working hours.
The Union’s claim for an occasional level 3 rating is denied and the College’s
rating of this factor at level 2, regular and recurring, is confirmed.
COMMUNICATION
The College rated this factor at level 2, regular and recurring. Such rating was not
contested by the Union. It argued, however, that an occasional level 3 rating should also
be assigned.
The Manual defines levels 2 and 3 Communication as follows:
Level 2 - Communication involves the exchange of information that
requires explanation and/or interpretation.
Level 3 – Communication involves explaining and/or interpreting
information to secure understanding. May involve communicating
technical information and advice.
The Notes to Raters are of assistance, stating in part as follows:
“Explain” and “interpretation” in level 2 refers to the fact that it is
information or data which needs to be explained or clarified. The position
exchanges basic technical or administrative information as the normal
course of the job and may be required to deal with minor conflicts or
complaints. This level may also include exchanges that are of a more
complex technical nature, where all the parties to the communication are
technically competent. That is, for those people the communication is
relatively basic as they share a vocabulary and understanding of the
concepts.
“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
19
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.
There is no dispute between the parties that the College granted a level 3
occasional rating to this factor in March 2007 when the position was first evaluated under
the new job evaluation system. I note as well that the materials before me reflect that the
College again communicated to the grievor as recently as February 2011 that an
occasional level 3 rating was assigned to this factor. The College asserted in these
proceedings, however, that such level 3 rating was granted in error and should not be
awarded now. No further explanation for the College’s change in rating was offered, and
in these circumstances, there is good reason to hold the College to the rating previously
assigned.
I have in any event considered the evidence adduced by the Union during these
proceedings. Most noteworthy, in my view, is that demonstrating the position’s role in
assisting contractors understand schematics and blueprints. The grievor gave evidence
that he does so, and the PDF reflects such communication. The Communication section
of the PDF states that the position provides “schematics and other information to
contractors” and confers on “complex wiring problems or installation plans.” The
Guiding/Advising Others section of the PDF notes that the position plays a role in
“assisting contractors in understanding schematics, particularly when documentation
appears incomplete or out of date.”
20
The Union argued in part that the grievor’s work with contractors and with non-
Electrician coworkers involves occasional level 3 Communication.
The College took the position that a level 2 rating captures the Communication
required of the Electrician. It suggested that the “audience” with whom the grievor
communicates is “technically competent” within the level 2 definition as addressed by the
Notes to Raters.
I find that the position assists contractors in understanding schematics, and in
doing so, communicates at level 3. In so concluding, I am mindful of the Notes to Raters
relied upon by the College. I do not suggest that contractors with whom the grievor so
interacts are anything but technically competent in their areas of expertise. Mr. Sippola
and the grievor both acknowledged, however, that the grievor acts as a valuable resource
to contractors because of his knowledge of the College electrical system, and I accept the
grievor’s suggestion that this is particularly so where drawings are out of date or
incomplete, something also reflected in the PDF. The Notes to Raters pertaining to level
3 Communication contemplate exchanges of a technical nature with “people who are not
familiar with the intricacies of the information.”
I am of the view that the grievor, in the circumstances described, communicates
with contractors at level 3. In light of the PDF and the parties’ positions in these
proceedings, I am satisfied that the Union has established the appropriateness of an
occasional rating at this level, and therefore order that the occasional level 3 rating sought
by the Union and previously assigned by the College be assigned to this factor.
I order that the rating of this factor be amended to level 2, regular and recurring
and level 3, occasional.
21
AUDIO/VISUAL EFFORT
The College has rated this factor at level 2, Focus Maintained. The Union did not
dispute the level 2 rating, but argued that a Focus Interrupted rating is warranted.
According to the Manual, level 2 refers to “regular and recurring long periods of
concentration; or occasional extended periods of concentration.” A “long period” is
defined as “up to 2 hours at one time including scheduled breaks.”
The following further definitions in the Manual must also be considered:
Focus Maintained – concentration can be maintained for most of the time.
Focus Interrupted – the task must be achieved in smaller units. There is a
need to refocus on the task at hand or switch thought processes.
The Notes to Raters are of assistance, stating in part as follows:
2. Raters must only consider tasks or situations where a higher than usual
level of focus or concentration is required. It is important to consider the
level of concentration that the task requires and not the incumbent’s
(in)ability.
3. Concentration means undivided attention to the task at hand.
4. Few interruptions or disruptions generally means that an appropriate
level of concentration can be maintained for the duration of the task being
performed. Where there are many disruptions, concentration must be re-
established and the task completed in smaller units or steps.
5. In determining what constitutes an interruption or disruption, you must
first decide whether the “disruption” (eg. customer requests) is an integral
or primary responsibility of the position (e.g. customer service,
registration/counter staff, help desk, information desk). Then consider
whether these activities are the primary or secondary aspect of the job. . . .
6. Consider the impact of the disruption on the work being done. For
example, can the incumbent in the position pick up where he/she left off or
has the interruption caused a disruption in the thinking process and
considerable time is spent backtracking to determine and pick up where
he/she left off.
22
The grievor testified and the College accepted that he is required to carry and
respond to a pager while on duty. He estimated that he receives two or three pages each
working day, and noted that these can come from the Control Centre, from Mr. Sippola or
his Coordinator, or from other Shop employees. The Union emphasized the need for the
Electrician to be attentive to his work so as to comply with all applicable safety
standards. The grievor further suggested that he deals with “extreme circumstances”
requiring “particular concentration” approximately ten per cent of his working time. The
Union noted by way of example the need to “trouble shoot live systems,” set out in the
PDF as an example of an activity requiring “a higher than usual need for focus and
concentration.” The grievor gave evidence as well that approximately three or four times
per week, pages he receives necessitate that he stops what he is doing and proceed to
address another task. Mr. Sippola questioned these numbers, and was of the view that
this would more likely occur no more than once weekly. Mr. Sippola also suggested that
there are natural breaking points in much of the work performed by the Electrician that
allow for easy resumption of work from where it was left at a point of interruption. His
further evidence was that in many cases of interruption, it is not necessary for the
Electrician to go “back to square one” in returning to the task at hand but that he can in
essence carry on from where he left off.
The Union emphasized the need for the Electrician to be attentive to safety
standards in the performance of his work. It suggested that responding to a pager is
neither an “integral” nor “primary responsibility of the position” and that I should
conclude that such interruptions viewed in the context of the evidence “interrupt focus”
within the factor definition. The College, in response, suggested that responding to the
23
pager is an “integral” part of the position, and that such disruptions do not result in the
interruption of focus as defined.
The Manual directs the rater to “assess the number and type of disruptions or
interruptions and the impact of these activities on the focus or concentration needed to
perform the task.” I appreciate the inherent difficulty in quantifying the frequency and
types of disruptions and in generalizing about their impact. The Manual is clear,
however, that “Focus Maintained” is the appropriate rating where “concentration can be
maintained for most of the time.” The interruptions caused by pages occur on the
grievor’s own evidence two to three times per day. Even if I accept the grievor’s
evidence over that of Mr. Sippola, such pages require him to interrupt his work to attend
to other tasks in the College three or four times weekly. There is no doubt that in some
instances, as suggested by Mr. Sippola, there are natural breaking points in work
assignments, and the need to respond to a pager does not in all instances impact in such a
way that “the task must be achieved in smaller units.” Further, I accept Mr. Sippola’s
suggestion which I did not understand to be disputed that in some instances, it is a simple
matter to resume a work assignment after the interruption caused by a pager. In the
words of the Manual, not all interruptions require “considerable time . . . spent in
backtracking . . . .”
The evidence before me does not establish that concentration in the position
cannot be maintained “most of the time” within the definition of “focus maintained.”
The College’s rating of this factor at level 2, Focus Maintained, is therefore
confirmed.
24
CONCLUSION
The grievance is upheld in part. The College’s rating of Analysis and Problem
Solving, Planning/Coordinating, Guiding/Advising Others, Service Delivery, and Audio
Visual Effort is confirmed. I order that the rating of Independence of Action and
Communication be amended as set out herein. The point rating for the position is thus
595, falling within Payband I. I order the College to compensate the grievor accordingly
retroactive to March 1, 2007.
I retain jurisdiction to assist the parties in the implementation of this Award.
DATED at TORONTO this 19th day of December, 2011.
"M. Tims"
____________________________________
Mary Lou Tims, Arbitrator
f;rffi:kfu*$[FortffiGffin
mmelt@
tuilHq@-Wror*Betffi
esdlgEneqEdffi@Fmr
m
lheFirecqmdmk.m&l&
& Tfx-[eimGqmd]&@EtkedfusFEdbffimffi"
A 'lheq;rlffii$ffii8fulr tr '!&Eiekt E
t?*. K 'natr
ffi* t
f
iii
E
nh@E
Dec't