10 rqq � Ri\� !3

#--�I cP 21�

IN THE MATTER OF A MEDIATION/ARBITRATION

BETWEEN:

THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

-the Employer

-and-

THE UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Local 1998

BEFORE:

APPEARANCES:

For the Union

For the Emg}Qy_er

-the Union

Pay_ Eguitv!Job Evaluation Decision # 29 Concerning Position 29240,

Assistant Systems A dministrator, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education

Kathleen G. O'Neil, Single Arbitrator

Patrick Legay, Counsel

Carolyn Kay, Counsel

Hearing January 3 1 , 20 1 3 in Toronto with Written submissions completed by February 7, 20 1 3

Decision

This decision deals with a d ispute between the parties over the appropriate c lassification for

Position 29240, Assistant Systems Administrator, Facu lty of Kinesiology and Physical Ed ucatio n .

The d ispute involves firstly, whether the matter shou ld b e considered to have been the subject o f

an agreement, a n d i f not, whether the position shou ld b e reclassified upwards from its placement

in job class Network Support 02 (NS 02), to N etwork Support (NS G1) as claimed by the u n io n .

The employer i s o f the view that NS 0 2 i s the appropriate placement for the position.

Has the job class been agreed?

I n considering whether the matter has been agreed, I have reviewed the e-mai l exchanges

betwee n the parties' representatives in regard to position 29240 , which span the period from May,

201 2 to N ovember 23, 2 0 1 2 . I am persuaded that the U n iversity had reason to bel ieve that the

u n ion ag reed that positio n 29240 should be classified as NS 02 between May 7 and J u ne 4 ,

201 2. However, the u n io n ind icated otherwise i n early September, 201 2 a n d asked for a meeting

to d iscuss it. This was in a period lead ing up to the implementation of new pay rates for a larg e

n umber o f bargaining u n it positions a s part o f the ongoing pay equ ity a n d j o b evaluation process.

Towards that end, the parties had exchanged l ists, attempting to clarify and account for a l l the

positio n s and their status in terms of agreement or d isagreement. One of these l ists has position

29240 i n d icated as agreed at N S 02.

By N ovember, further exchanges made it clear that the u n ion d id not consider the N S 02 rating

appro p riate or agreed, and its representatives reiterated their desire for the meeting that had

been asked for in September. The union is of the view that the matter was n ever fully d iscussed,

so that the position's inclusion on the implementation l ist shou ld n ot amount to an agreement that

the p lacement was appropriate . It is not d isputed that, during the same period, there were a

n u m ber of positions identified by the employer as well which had been ind icated as agreed i n the

l ists exchanged prior to i m plementation, but subsequently identified as data errors, and dealt with

further by the parties despite earl ier ind ications of agreement. I n this regard, the u n io n asserted

that position 29240 was o n e of a thousand position s on the implementation l ist, and that many

amendments had been made since, most at the request of the Un iversity due to data errors.

Further, it is the u nion's position that even if there was an agreement, which is not admitted, the

Protocols that bind the parties clearly contemplate that inco nsistencies wi l l be remedied, and it is

the U n ion 's position that the p lacement of 29240 i n N S 02 creates an inconsistency.

1

I have carefu l ly considered the parties' submission!') o n this point and note that the evidence

about the course of dea l i ngs betwee n the parties in regard s to data errors was n ot in d ispute . As

wel l , it was n ot d emonstrated that the mixed indications concern ing position 29240 should be

considered to be in any different category than these other matters which had earl ier a lso

appeared to be the subject of agreement. In the resu lt, it is my conclusion that the status of

29240 was not shown to be substantively d ifferent than other positions which the parties d ealt

with as data errors, and thus the dispute should be dealt with o n its merits.

Should Position 29240 be reclassified ugwards from NS 02 to NS G 1?

Overview of Position 29240

Position 29240 is an I n formation Technology ( IT) n etwork position serving the Facu lty of

Kinesiology and Physical Education . The position reports to the Director, I nformation Technology,

and receives fu n ctional d irection from the Senior Systems Ad ministrator, a bargain ing u n it

position .

Its job description (JD) ind icates that the purpose of the position is to provide technical su pport

and ongoing maintenance of the Facu lty's IT network. Specific duties include providing g e neral

support services to computer users of the Facu lty by assessing computing needs; developing and

maintain ing a complete understand ing of the current state of the network a n d its systems;

troub leshootin g hardware problems; assisting i n the desig n , testing and documentation of system

components; insta l l ing new hardware a n d software; investigating and resolving user problems,

assisting users with their appl ications; mainta in ing and provid ing su pport for connectivity on a n I P

network to Central U n iversity systems, enabl ing users to access and use these systems

effectively.

The i ncumbent describes the core responsibi l ities of the positio n in his Question naire S u mmary

Document (QSD) as fol lows:

Desig n, d evelop, manage, administer, troub leshoot, and optimize M icrosoft Active Directory environ ment; manage a variety of d ifferent servers such as D N S , D HC P, web, fi le, print , backu p , terminal servers; admin ister n etwork shares for users/groups access and permissions; maintain n etwork and server security; assist in the development of n ew servers and systems; troub leshoot server issues; deploy new network printers; manage user accou nts; act as a project leader for the help desk ticketing system project; d evelop and maintain help desk ticketing system for the entire facu lty; mainta in and u pdate system documentation and FAQs for end users .

2

The context of the dispute and G eneral Submissions

This d ispute arises as the result of a 201 2 req u est for reclassification by the i ncumbent. The job

had been classified at the 8N level under the former classificatio n system, and subsequ e ntly

p laced in the current S ES/U job classification system at the level of C l ient Support C1 at Pay

Band 9 during an earlier phase of the parties' pay equity and job evaluation process. In Apri l

201 2 the parties concluded a fu l l review of IT positions under the S ES/U job evaluation plan

d u ring which the position was placed in its current job class, at the same pay band.

There was a reorganizat ion affecting IT jobs i n the Facu lty of Kinesiology and Physical Ed ucatio n

in April 201 2, prior to which this position reported to the Director, I nformation Technology a n d

took functional d i rection from 2 levels o f un ion ized IT staff: the Systems Ad ministrator ( N S G 1 ,

Pay Band 12) and the Sen ior Systems Admin istrator (NS Kl , Pay Band 1 5), both of whom also

reported to the Director, I nformation Technology. S ince the reorgan ization, in which the Systems

Admin istrator position was d iscontinued , the position reports to the Di rector, and receives

fu nctional d irection from the Senior Systems Admin istrator. It is the employer's position that

despite these organ izat ional changes, the position 's core respon sib i l ities have not cha nged

substantia l ly enough to warrant a change in job classification and that the core duties of position

29240 are captured in the establ ished l ine score of job class NS D2.

The Un ion, by contrast, sees the incumbent as having taken on the work of the e l iminated NS G 1

position a n d accord ingly proposes that it b e placed i n job class N S G 1 ( Pay Band 1 2) . The u n io n

refers t o the most recently exchanged Job C lass Su mmary Docu ment, which summarizes the

typ ical duties for the job c lass as follows:

Admin isters the n etwork, server-configuration, workgroup app l ications and user accou nts for a la rge department or facu lty.

The Un iversity does not see position 29240 fitting within the a bove-noted description and

proposes this position for incl usion in job class NS D2 because the incumbent is not responsib le

for the fol lowing:

Technical analysis, specification , design , coordinatio n , implementation and integration of the Facu lty's network. Making recommendations regarding hardware/software requ i re ments. P lann ing and desig n ing new network u pgrades.

These elements are to be found in the JD for position 1 91 88, the NS G1 job which was e l iminated

from the Facu lty.

3

The u n io n responds that the above work is more properly seen as NS K1 work, agreed to be at a

h ig her level . I n the u n ion's view, the placement of position 29240 i n N S 02 results i n

i nconsistency a s t h e incumbent i s doing work wh ich the u n ion maintains i s appropriate t o t h e N S

G 1 job class, such a s admin istering t h e network, overseei ng maintenance and d eveloping and

mainta in ing server software/hardware, elements of the NS G 1 Job Class Summary Document

referred to above. The u n ion sees the N S G 1 job class as desig ned for those who do the day-to­

day admin istration of the networks. I n the facu lty of Kinesiology , in the un ion's view, the Sen ior

Systems Analyst is responsible for project leadersh ip, and design ing the overal l n etwork

infrastructure. It is the incumbent who performs the day-to-day admin istration of the network in

coordination with the Sen ior Systems Ana lyst, in the un ion 's view.

The U n ion submits that the U n iversity's placement of this posjtion in NS 02 would be appropriate

if this position served solely a front-l ine troubleshooting role, and if the extent of its responsibi l ity

for the network was the config uration of operating systems, and the mon itoring of servers and

workstations, which it arg ues is not the case.

Overal l then , the questio n before me is which job class is the best fit for the position in question .

Th is is t o b e determined i n l ight o f the nature o f j o b classes, both u n d e r the parties' chosen job

evaluation system and the Pay Equity Act, which g roup jobs with simi lar, but n ot necessari ly

identica l , duties and responsibi l ities. In this context, there are a range of d uties and

responsibi l ities wh ich can fit together comfortably, even though some jobs a re closer to the h igher

o r lower end of the job class, i n terms of the level of the ensemble of duties and responsib i l ities.

As wel l , as will be i l l ustrated below, there is often support for both of the proposed ratings in the

factor d escriptions, wh ich are used to analyze the job for evaluation purposes. I n determin ing

which to choose, intern a l equ ity and respect for the overa l l hierarchy of positions in a g iven job

g rouping, such as the IT jobs at the u n iversity, are important considerations.

I t is also worth reiterating at the outset that the job evaluation system is designed to evaluate the

job, and not the person ho ld ing the job at any one time, as the classification of the job is meant to

be val id no matter who is ho ld ing the job. Therefore, it does not focus on the person a l capacity,

ski l l or level of contribution of the current incumbent.

The d ispute invo lves d ifferent proposed ratings for eight of the evaluation factors which make up

the SES/U system, which will be d iscussed be low in turn. The factors in d ispute, wh ich reflect the

d ifferences between the estab l ished l ine scores for job classes N S 02 and N S G1 , a re:

1 . SK2 P revious Experience 2. SK5 Decision-Making 3 . RE1 Responsibi l ity for Information

4

1.

4. RE2 5. RE4 6. RES 7. W01 8. W02

Responsib i l ity for Materials, Equipment and/or Outcomes Financial Responsibi l ity Manage or Direct Others

Temperature, Noise and Other Enviro n mental Conditions Hazards

SK2 - Previous Experience U n iversity Rating level 30 (min imum 3 years' experience)

level 35 (min imum 4 years' experience) U n ion Rating

The Job Description states 2 years related experience is req u ired , including systems

admin istratio n , n etworking and security, excel lent knowledge of Microsoft and Novell operating

systems and M icrosoft office. Additional preferred ski l ls l isted as an asset are: Adobe suite and

SQL.

The employer n otes that job descriptions for other N S D2 positions which it sees as comparab le

show a min imum of either two'

or th ree years' experience as req ui rements. The incumbent, with

the manage r's agreement, favou red three years of experience, and gave as h is rationale the

fol lowing:

3 years of systems admin istration , networkin g , and secu rity experience working in a complex, heterogeneous n etworked computing environ ment is requ ired due to the natu re of the job

In these circumstances, the U n iversity agrees to level 30 - 3 years of experience and bel ieves

this level is the best fit for the position .

B y contrast, t h e u n ion argues for fou r years a s the min imum, in l i ne with t h e estab l ished scores

for NS G1 positions. Its rationa le is that the incumbent admin isters the n etwork for the Facu lty of

Kinesiology and P hysical Ed ucation, wh ich at the time of the J D, consisted of 130 workstations,

13 network printers, 12 ind ivid ual printers, 9 fi le servers and 150 users.

The union arg ues that the position in d ispute is closely comparable to position 30137, the J unior

Systems Adm i n istrator i n the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. The

incumbent in that position was rated at level 35 at SK2 (four years' experience) consistent with

the NS G1 job class, despite the fact that a l l of the J D , the incumbent, and the manager ind icated

three years as the appropriate min imum.

The incumbent i n position 30137 describes his role as fol lows:

Troub leshoot computer systems, network and printer related problems. Create and remove user accounts. I nstal l new programs on workstations or servers; remove spyware, virus from user's workstatio n . Educate users on using the computer resou rces and answer any concerns that they have.

5

The union argues that the incumbent in positio n 29240 serves a sim i lar function with in the Facu lty

of Kinesiology and Physical Education , as reflected in his description of his role set out above.

Four years is, in the u n io n 's submission , reflective of a representative level of the amount of

experience n eeded for systems admin istration work that is n ot at the senior level . The employer

d isagrees with the idea that the four year m in imum is related to the size of the department or

facu lty, maintain ing that it is related more to the complexity of the endeavou r than the size of the

organ izational un it.

This is a factor wh ich is stra ightforward in presentation , but presents chal lenges in appl ication .

F i rstly, it measures min imum, not optimal experience, or the amount of experience wh ich any

particu lar incumbent may have. Further, d ifferent people see the min imum kind and amount of

experience qu ite d ifferently and different ind ividuals no doubt req uire d ifferent a mounts of

experience to take on a particular job. F u rther, the more varied the experience requ i red , the

more d ifficult it is to judge the min imum n u mber of years it would take to obta in it. Discern ing the

correct level for job eva luation purposes is also compl icated by the fact that the level of specificity

of the experience requ ired varies between job descriptions and there is room for variation within

and among jobs and job classes. The parties appear to agree that related experience is what is

being measured by this factor, rather than total career experience, wh ich goes some d istance to

addressing th is concern, but does not eliminate it entirely.

Having considered all the material before me, I am not persuaded that there is a demonstrated

need for more than the 3 years the incumbent and the manager see as appropriate, in addition to

a col lege d iploma in computer science or a related fie ld, which is consistent with the estab l ished

rating for SK2 for the NS 02 level . The material before me does n ot address what specifical ly

wou ld be gained i n the extra year proposed that would be necessary to take o n the job , or that

the specific kinds of experien ce detai led by the incumbent or the job description can not be gained

i n three years. However, g iven the complexities of the job, and the variations i n experience level

such as with position 30 1 37 referred to above, the four year level which goes with the NS G1 job

c lass would not be someth ing that would be sufficiently d issimi lar to d isqual ify the job from that

job class if it was otherwise the most appropriate.

2. SKS- Decision Maki n g Ski l ls

This factor measu res the kind of decision-making required by the position and the i n dependence

and judgment requ ired to make decisions. The employer and un ion arg ued for levels 25 and 35

respectively. The descriptions of the factor levels in that range appear below:

6

D ECISIONS I NVOLVI NG U N EX PECTED EVENTS---------------------------------------25 (routine decisions and/or occasional decisions in response to u n expected events; decisions may invo lve introd ucing variations to establ ished practices and procedures requ iring problem solving abi l ity. Decisions i nvolve minor trouble-shooting of e . g . unexpected hardware/software problems; prioritizing workflow; deali ng with routi n e enquiries e.g . on accounts payable, with departments a n d vendors, verifying p u rchasing quotes; interpreting g u idel ines on e .g . reimbursement of expenses)

D ECI SIONS ABOUT OCCAS I ONAL U N US UAL A N D U N EXP ECTED EVENTS ---------30 ( routine decisions and occasiona l decisions in response to u n usual and u nexpected events; routine and non-routine decisions that req uire appl ication & interpretation of rules, gu idelines and/or procedures using some independent judgement, and req uir ing ana lytical skills. For example: creation of customised lab apparatus; organ ising conferences/events; interpreting data req u iring in itiative and independent judgement such as making exceptional admissions decisions or mod ifying experimental protocols)

D ECI SIONS ABOUT FREQUENT U N EX P E CTED EVENTS -----------------------------------35 (routine decisions and in respo nse to frequent unexpected events with l im ited access to h igher levels and requ iring the appl ication and interpretation of po l icies. Job may req u ire independent judgment and ski l l to plan and organ ize more effectively. For exam ple: plans components of projects/programs; plans workflow for a g ro up; identifies best approach/strategy for donor relations; selects commissions or o utsid e contracts for the facil ity; ensures compliance with regu lations affecting e.g. certification or status of the U n iversity or a facility)

The U n iversity contends that level 25 is the best fit for this factor, consistent with the incumbe nt's

e ntries on the QSD, such as that he prioritizes his own workflow, language fou n d at level 25 , and

does n ot make decisions in response to unexpected events, when decisions about "freq uent

u nexpected events" is a req uirement of level 35.

As wel l , the employer does not see the examples provided by the incu mbent under "P lann ing

components of a program or projects" as meeting the criteria for Level 35 , as it is the i r view that

these examples involve carrying out the end result of someone else's larg e r p lans, rather than the

l evel of p lanning contemplated by Leve l 35. For instance, the incumbent m entions p lans result ing

in deploying "new network printers" and configuring "a virtual testing computing e nviro nment, " for

which, in the employer's view, the incu mbent is larg ely responsible for p rioritizin g h is own work

rather than doing broader p lanning . The employer does n ot see these as exa mp les as part of a

project, asserting in argu ment that they are simply tasks associated with troubleshooting and

maintenance of the systems.

Further, the employer submits that the incumbent's statement that he acts "as a project leader for

a h elp desk ticketing system project" does not in itself prove that the incumbent p lanned or

developed the idea in the fi rst place. The employer sees the role of the position , in this and other

activities, as developing and mainta in ing the system upon the direction of others. The employer

n otes that the helpdesk System was purchased from the Ontario Institute for Stud ies i n Education

(OISE) and that the incu mbent was part of the team which worked on tailorin g it, such as by

changing the h eaders to make it more appropriate a n d user friendly for the Faculty's system. The

7

employer maintains that a n u mber of people in the department worked on it, the incumbent was

not the p roject lead, and in the employer's view, the project d id not invo lve i n d ependent actio n or

the development of a program or a project appropriate to the NS G1 level of positions.

I n addition , the employer disagrees with the un ion 's description of the incumbent as progra m ming

this system for the whole faculty. The employer sees the work as. basic modifying of config u ration

and headings to change what the user sees, and asserts that the basic tracking of configu ration

and functional ity was done at OISE and not changed at the Facu lty.

Counsel for the employer further submits that even if the incumbent's work is considered to

involve programming at some leve l , programmers such as the I nteractive media developers a l l

have an ag reed l evel 25 for SK5.

Another area of d isag reement about the incumbent's work is the level of invo lvement with secu rity

issues. I n arg u ment, employer counsel took issue with both the idea that any responsibi l ity for

security of the position in d ispute qua l ifies at the N S G 1 level , d isagreeing with the u n io n that a l l

involvement with security i s indicative o f t h e admin istration o f the system, a n d a lso with t h e idea

that the job i n dispute has responsibil ity for the security of the system. The employer n otes there

is noth ing in the J D which gives the job that duty. Acknowledging that there is a reference i n the

QSD to security, the employer maintains that the work done by th is position is i n regards to

verifying access rig hts, wh ich involves a review of a n appl ication form, someth ing fundamenta l ly

d ifferent than be ing responsible for a l l e lements of the system, inc luding security. Further, it is

the employer's position that the incumbent's example in the QSD of g ranting users access i n

accordance with authorization would n ot raise t h e j o b t o t h e level o f NS G 1 , even i f t h e employer

were to concede it warrants a h igher S K5 factor.

By contrast, the u n ion submits that the duties l isted on the J D and the QS D support a level of

independence and sign ificance of judg ment sufficient to warrant level 35, reflective of the NS G 1

job class. I n su pport of this position , the un ion notes that the J D requ ires a strong sense of

organization , and an abil ity to work independently, whi le the QSD shows that the incumbent p lans

or develops programs or projects, as wel l as their components, independently. As wel l , the u n io n

underlines that t h e manager agreed with the section o f t h e QSD where t h e incumbent gave actin g

a s a project leader for t h e h e l p desk ticketing system project a s an example o f plann i n g a nd/or

developing a program or project independently.

The u n ion argues that because the incumbent is responsible for the admin istratio n of the

Faculty's n etwork, the level of decision making requ ired is above minor troubleshooting of

hardware and software problems, lang uage reflected in the factor description at Level 25. In the

un ion's view, the incumbent is responsible for mainta in ing the integ rity and fu nctional ity of the

8

n etwork itself, and the job in d ispute therefore requires independent judgment and ski l l to plan

and organize more effectively, wh ich is language from the factor description at Level 35 at S K5.

The u n ion states that the key distinction on this factor between NS D2 and NS G1 is whethe r the

i ncumbent is playing larg ely a front- l ine su pport role, responding to issues, at NS D2, or whether

the incumbent manages the network, with responsibi l ity regard i n g overa l l n etwork security and

new systems, p lanning components, reflective of N S G 1 . The u n io n submits that it is clear that

the incumbent in d ispute fal ls into the latter cam p .

I ncumbents placed in t h e j o b class NS G 1 were evaluated a t a level 3 5 under S K 5 in accordance

with the fol lowing agreed rationale:

Job may requ ire independent judg ment and ski l l to plan and organ ize more effectively, e .g . contributes to the p lann ing , analyzing, d esign i n g , testin g , developing , insta l l ing , troub leshooting and mainta in ing of hardware a n d software systems; p lans components of p rojects, e .g . participates in developing a n d mainta in ing web based appl ications and databases; develops and maintai ns security protoco ls a n d appl ications .

The union asserts that a review of the J D for the position i n dispute alone shows that the

incumbent in this position contributes to the p lann ing , analyz ing , desig n ing , testing , develop ing ,

insta l l ing , troub leshootin g and maintain ing of hardware and software systems in relation to the

Facu lty's network.

As wel l , the u n ion sees the position in d ispute as comparable to position 24334, the N etwork &

Website Supervisor for the Career Center, agreed to fit with the N S G 1 job class. The incumbent

i n this position describes h is d uties as fol lows in his QSD:

Maintain N etwork and servers performance main ly for Career Centre and Student Services. Develop Web appl ications, col lect statistics for analysis, trou bleshoot computer problems and network issues for staff both at Career Centre and Student Services. Compi le tech n ical docu mentation and project p lans.

This incumbent describes making the fol lowing decisions independe ntly:

Sched ule and prioritize my own workflow. Prepare recommendations for projects or proposals for approval , inc luding research, analysis. Troubleshoot and resolve computer, network and software appl ications issues. Make suggestions regard ing n ew equipment purchase.

Regard ing p lanning components of a program or project, this incumbent reports:

Decide or create proper methods or a lgorithms to apply for a program or project.

Regarding p lanning and/or deve loping a program or project i n dependently, this incu m bent

reports:

Suggest the time l ine for the completion of a project. Decide what tools o r methods best fit for the development of the appl ications.

9

In the un ion 's submission , this i n cumbent carries the same level of independent judg ment and

sk i l l in plan n ing i n h is role i n the admin istration of the network for the Career Center as does the

i ncumbent in the position in d ispute in the admin istration of the network for the Facu lty of

Kinesiology and P hysical Education. The employer d isagrees, submitti n g that the level of

responsibi l ity establ ished i n the JD for position 24334 is much hig her.

Further, the un ion arg ues that a comparison to the positions classified as NS 02 makes clear that

the level of decision-making for that class is commensurate with a front- l ine troub le-shootin g role.

For example, position 30798, the Computing Support Analyst in the Facu lty of Med icine describes

h is duties as fo l lows:

Computer and N etwork Su pport Analyst. Provide Support for security related issues, such as viruses, spyware, malware and hacking. Provide cl ient assistance for software and hardware related issues. Provide n etwork support for any related network issues within the medical sub-network at U of T. Configure computers and instal l them on the netwo rk. Troubleshoot n etwork related problems. Troubleshoot end user related prob lems.

This position received a 25 at SK5 with the fol lowing agreed rationale:

Routine decisions and/or occasional decisions in response to u nexpected events; decisions may invo lve i ntroducing variations to established practices and procedu res requ iring problem solv ing abi l ity. Decisions i nvolve trouble-shootin g and resolving u nexpected hardware/software problems: i nvestigates d iag noses and resolves techn ical and operational problems with networks, hardware and software.)

The u n ion comments that, although the inc�mbent i n d ispute does do som e front-l ine trouble­

shooting work, the core of h is duties invo lves managing the network, maintain ing n etwork

security, and assisting in the development of new systems, including independe ntly programming

new systems such as the he lp desk ticketing system . The u n ion su bmits that the incumbent

mainta ins the security of the n etwork and makes decisions about user access and permissions.

The employer d isag rees, arg u i n g that a comparison of the J D's for positions 30798 and 2 9240

does not show the latter having much greater responsib i l ity, and certain ly n ot at the level of NS

G1.

I n considering these submissions, I have looked at the factor language itself, the agreed

rationales for IT positions, as wel l as the comparator jobs, to see where the positio n , as

evidenced by job content evidence derived from the J D and the QSD, best fits.

Starting with the factor language itself, set out above, for the un ion's d esired level 35, the

decision making at that level is characterized by freq uent decisions i n response to u nexpected

events, l imited access to h ig her levels, as well as the i nterpretation (as disting u ished from just the

1 0

application of) po l icies. None of these e lements is supported in the material for the positio n i n

d ispute a s n either the J D nor the QSD show any n eed for response to u n expected events o r

interpreting po licy, and both make i t clear that the incu mbent works very closely with the Senior

System Admin istrator, a situation wh ich appears to be the opposite of l imited access to h igher

levels. The u n ion nonetheless argues that the position does requ ire the independent judgement

and ski l l to plan and organ ize more effectively recogn ized at Level 35. I n particular, the arg u ment

is essential ly that i n the h ierarchy of p lann ing , this position rests at the intermed iate level betwee n

NS 02, characterized b y jobs primari ly responding t o problems a n d p lann ing their own work a n d

NS K 1 populated b y jobs plann ing a t t h e project leve l . NS G 1 , accord ing to t h e agreed rationale ,

contributes to the plan n ing , analyzing , and mainta in ing of hardware and software systems and

p lans components of projects. The union arg ues that the incu mbent's work qua l ifies at least as

contributing to plan ning at th is intermediate level , and that h is leadersh ip o n the he lp desk ticket

project q ua l ifies as a component of a project.

There is no doubt that the incumbent's work contributes to the overal l effort of mainta in ing the

Faculty's hardware and software systems, and there is planning involved. But I am not

persuaded that Level 35 is the best fit or descriptio n for that work, qu ite apart from the fact that

the elements of decisions in response to unexpected events, l imited access to h igher levels and

interpretation of pol icy are n ot demonstrated features of the work. That is because I am

persuaded by the materia l that the level of autonomy for p lann ing and projects that is associated

with the NS G1 job class has not been assigned to the position . Even tho u g h the incumbent's

summary of his job on the QSD uses words that cou ld be consistent with the h igher level of

responsib i l ity, the detai ls, in my view, do not support a find ing that the h ig her level rating is a

better fit than level 25 for S K5. For instance, the examples g iven of p lan n ing components of a

program such as deploying network printers, or config uring a virtua l testing e nviron ment are more

consistent with the rationale for S K5 at 25 of "investigates, d iagnoses and resolves tech n ical and

operational problems with networks, hardware and software", than using " independent judgment

and ski l l to p lan and organ ize more effectively". Th is is because the focus is more o n hand l ing

specific tech n ical issues, inc lud ing p lanning his own work, than on the plan n ing for doing such

tasks more effectively, which has more of an element of planning more general ly , beyond o ne's

own work, than I find to be supported in the materia l .

I have carefu lly considered the evidence, arguments and post-hearing submissions concern ing

the example of p lann ing a project, or component of one, of the incumbent's work on the Hel p

Desk Ticket system, and I do not find i t to b e a n exception to the find ings just above. T h e h e l p

desk ticketing system i s software used to track issues reported b y end-users, a n d record the

responses and resolutions g iven by support staff. There is no indication that the work done by

1 1

the incumbent was org a n ized as a project i n some way that is inconsistent with the above

rationale at Level 25, or with the factor lang uage at Level 25 itself, such as "decisions i n volve

i ntroducing variations to established practices and proced ures req u i ring problem solving abil ity".

The incumbent worked with others on the reconfiguration of the OISE ticket system for the

Facu lty's Help Desk, so that there was a team aspect to it, and he may have lead the effort for the

task in terms of doing the most work on it. Nonetheless, the material does not establish that he

defined the project, set g oals or timetables or had the responsibil ity for coord inating others' work,

such as one sees in project managing or leading more easily identified as such . An example of

such an ind ication is in the QSD for posit ion 24334 who notes that he suggests t imel ines for the

com pletion of projects a n d decides what tools or methods best fit the d evelopment of

appl ications.

Further, the employer's point that, even if the help desk work i nvolved programming , people who

p rogram regu larly received an agreed SK5 at level 25, was not d isputed .

I have compared the incumbent's work regard ing projects as d escribed in h is QSD with that of

position 23429 , an NS G 1 comparator referred to by the u n ion. The QSD of the position

describes h is role as inc lud ing being team leader of j u n ior system admin istrators in various

projects, which the u n ion compares favou rably with the incumbent's description of h is role i n the

h e l p desk work. The QSD for position 23429 describes work i nvolving coord i n ating system

admin istrators, in more than one project, a h i g h er level coordinating role than mentioned in the

material for the position in d ispute. The examples g iven i n the section of the QS D reserved for

detai ls about decision making a lso describe a h igher level of decision making than that d escribed

in the QSD for position 29240, in my view. For i nstance, there is decision making in response to

u nexpected events on a da i ly basis for position 23429, as opposed to none for the position in

d ispute. The projects p lanned are several , and of a wider scope, such as p lann ing various

n etwork and computer service projects, inc luding departmental backup, mai l service and the

research group web server replacement procedure. Al l i n al l , a lthough there is some overlap in

the wording the incu mben ts use to describe portions of their work, I do not find th is comparison

supportive of a finding that position 29240 is characterized by decisio n making at a level as h igh

as position 23429 .

I h ave also looked a t the Job Class S u m mary Documents presented by the u nion a s i l l ustrative,

wh ich , although not final ly agreed , have n ot been shown to be i n accurate in any respect relevant

to this d ispute. The N S G1 job class is described as admin istering , rather than assist ing i n the

admin istration of, a network, and as overseeing maintenance of the network, whi le N S D2 is

described as "configures, maintains and mon itors networks server and operating systems". I do

1 2

n ot find the reconfiguration of the he lp d esk ticket system to be beyond the work described i n that

summary for NS 02, and I do not see it or the other work described in the material as reach ing

the level of responsibil ity for the admin istration or the network or overseeing maintenance. I n

general , a l l o f these ind icators support the JD's description o f the role o f the position a s being to

assist in the p lanning and configuring of the network, to work on the n etwork u nder d i rection ,

rather than having a h igher level of i ndependent respon sibi l ity for it.

I n this respect, and in the context of IT jobs, the relative levels of independence are n ot primari ly

measuring what might be termed the independence of mind necessary to do the work of

troubleshooting computers and systems at a l l levels. Clearly the incu mbent in the position in

d ispute and al l h is IT colleag ues need that, but the parties have not g iven them al l the same level

rating for S K5. Rather, what this factor is measu ring is the relative level of independence and

judgement requ ired to make decisions of the kind d escribed in the l a n guage of the factor

descriptions. I n order to sort th e levels in an ordered way , the language i ntrod uces eleme nts

such as the frequency of response to u nexpected events, how routine o r n ovel the decisions

faced might be, what level of resources there are to rely on, in terms of the level of gu idel ines,

pol icy or procedu res, the job is req u i red to apply or interpret, as well as access to h ig her levels of

staff. These are ways of d istin gu ish ing the levels of assig ned responsibi l ity a n d accountabil ity for

independent decision .

I note that, even a t level 25 , i n both t h e factor language ar)d agreed rationale , decisions in respect

of unexpected events are featured as at least occasio n a l , whi le the incu m bent ind icated on his

QSD that he made no decisions i n respect of unexpected events. To that extent, level 25 is

clearly not inadequate. As wel l , to the extent that the i n d ication in the factor language at level 25

of "minor troubleshooting" is see n as less sign ificant than the work performed by the incu mbent, it

is of note that the parties' agreed rationale for level 25 for network support work does n ot uti l ize

the word minor, and is more specifical ly geared to the overal l agreed h ierarchy of IT jobs arrived

at in April 2 0 1 2.

The level of judg ment involved i n the Facu lty's network jobs is also addressed i n their JD's in the

section entitled "Outcome/Consequence of Error". The levels add ressed there ind icate that the

position in d ispute was n ot intended to have the same level of responsibi l ity for independent

judgement as the e l iminated N S G1 position 1 91 88. For instance, position 2 9240 is described as

exercising "judgement and d iscretion in deal ing with a l l computing related matters and

determin ing wh ich user inqu iries o r problems shou ld be referred to other special ist". By contrast,

position 1 9 1 88 is described as " requ ired to conduct independent studies a n d ana lyses, interpret

and determi n e conclusions involving complex programs and systems." That position was to

1 3

recommend courses of action to the supervisor and to exercise "considerab le judgment a n d

discretion i n dea l ing with a l l computing related matters, " clearly a description o f a h i g h e r level o f

responsib i l ity for t h e kinds o f duties relevant t o S K5. Further, the material does not estab l ish that

the incumbent has since been assigned d ifferent work that wou ld mean he had been assigned

work with that level of expectatio n , so that I am not persuaded to accept the un ion's arg u ment

that the incumbent has effectively moved i nto the space left open by the d iscontin uation of the

former N S G 1 position in the department.

Nor do I fin d that the work assigned to position 1 9 1 88 was not representative of work appropriate

to the NS G1 level. The u n ion did argue that some of the work found in that job descriptio n , i . e.

Tech nical analysis, specification , desig n , coord inatio n , implementation and integratio n of the

Faculty's network, making recom mendations regarding hardware/software requirements a n d

planning and designing new network u pgrades should b e seen a s higher level work, more

appropriate to job class N S K1 . A n umber of those terms can be found throug hout the rationale

language for the agreed scores for the NS G 1 level, such as "writes specifications" at RE1 ,

"recommends equipment and component needs" at RE5 and "analyz ing , design ing" at S K5 . It is

true that some of the same or s imi lar terms can be found in the N S K1 rationales, such a s

"proposes specifications for n ew computer servers prior t o ordering" a t SK5, b u t the ensemble of

the duties for that job class is agreed to be hig her, and in my view, the elements mentioned in the

J D for position 1 9 1 88 correspond wel l to the rationales for NS G 1 .

I n genera l , i n any event, there is overlap i n the J D's of the three positions that dealt with the

Faculty's n etworks before the reorgan ization , in terms of duties such as supporting and advisin g

users, u n derstanding the state of the network, troubleshootin g , problem so lv ing, mainta in ing the

computer lab and being ab le to commun icate techn ical conce pts to a wide ran g e of users. B ut

there are clear d istinctions as wel l , which correspond to the th ree job classes i n wh ich those

positions were placed. I have mentioned some of them above, but there are a lso other important

responsibi l ities for both the N S G 1 ( 1 9 1 88) and N S K1 (27052) positions in th is faculty that are

not present i n the JD or the examples in the QSD for the position in d ispute. These inc lude

ensuring security provisions are in operation for position 1 9 1 88 and mainta in ing security and

integ rity of the system, making sure d isaster recovery p lans a re v iab le and coord inating i ntern a l

and extern a l resou rces for both positions 1 91 88 and 27052.

I have a lso compared the u n ion's comparator position 30798 at NS 02 with position 2 9240, a n d

find that a lthoug h that position i s not solely ded icated to network issues, t h e position h a s very

simi lar network su pport d uties for cl ients, and that overal l , the material does not demonstrate a

significantly lower level of decision making . That incumbent d id not claim any project p lan n i n g

1 4

d uties, but does have responsibi l ities for tracking help desk requests to a l low for proactive

identification of growing issues and the development of a Faculty Knowledgebase/FAQ, the latter

being similar to duties identified by the incumbent in the position in d ispute.

For the above reasons, I am of the view that level 25 for SK5 is a better fit for position 29240 than

level 35.

3. R E 1 - Responsi b i l ity for Information

With this factor, raters are to consider the responsibility for collecting a n d passing on informatio n

t o others, including t h e complexity, sensitivity a n d sign ifican ce o f that i nformati o n .

T h e factor levels arg ued for were 4 0 and 25 b y t h e u n i o n and employer respectively. T h e factor

descriptions in this range a re as fol lows:

( I I ) SOME RES P O N S I B I LITY FOR I N FORMATIO N ------------------------------------2 5 (col lecting a n d passing on information e .g . generating reports, d isse m i n ating information , verifying information , formatting documents)

( I ) S I G N I F I CANT RESPONSI B I LITY FOR I N FORMATI ON --------------------------30 ( Information is of importance e .g . editing content, orig ina l descriptive cata log u ing . Information many be sensitive or confidentia l )

( I I ) S I G N I F I CANT RESPONS I B I LITY FOR I N FORMATI ON --------------------------35 I nformation is of importance e . g . produces marketing and p romotional/outreach

materials. I n formation may be sensitive/confidential and may be published.

( I l l ) SIGN I FI CANT RESPONSIB ILITY FOR I N FORMATION -------------------------40 I n formation is complex and/or tech nica l , e .g . g rants, statistical information , financial statements, donor reports, complex design schematics. I t may be publ ished. M u ch sensitive/confidentia l .

I n the un ion's view, the fol lowing duties from the position 's JD are relevant to responsibi l ity for

informatio n :

Assisting with t h e admin istration and on-going effectiveness o f the Facu lty's n etworks. Maintain ing com m u nication to Central U n iversity a n d Library systems and supporting a variety of hardware and software products inc luding Microsoft and N ovell operating systems and M icrosoft appl ications Recommends tra in ing courses for staff to the Manager of Admin istrative Services Performing daily backups of data stored in the servers to ensure no loss of Faculty data Assisting in the d evelopment of n ew systems, mostly customizing/configuring of the shelf packages, as required, from needs assessments thro u g h desi g n p hase, Q NA and implementation I nformation management-integrating information needs of users across p latforms through general advice and assistan ce in creating simple queries and database structures.

1 5

On the QSD, relevant entries i n cluded the fol lowing :

Manage a l ist of computers, user accounts, n etwork printers, a n d computer pol icies on servers (regarding developing fi l ing , record a n d/or data systems) .

M ake changes to the layout of the help desk ticketing system (regard ing editing content. )

Review new user account appl ication form; review files/folders access rig hts req u est; review printing access req uest.

Verify authorization information from new user account appl ication form; verify access rights request in accordance with the owner of the shared folders.

The incum bent ind icates:

I deal with user's network data as I am responsib le for managing users' home folders on the servers regard ing sensitive/confidential information.

I a m responsible for administering and maintaining d ifferent servers regard ing tech n ical information.

I a m responsible for maintain ing network connectivity among d ifferent locations regarding complex info rmation .

T h e manager agrees with the incumbent's responses o n this sectio n .

The u nion a rgues that t h e above responses, a n d the J D for this position , i l l u strate a responsibi l ity

for complex and techn ical information, consistent with the incumbent's responsibi l ity for

maintain ing the network and admin istering different servers. The JD also d escribes the

incumbent's duty to maintain "co m munication to Centra l Un iversity and L ibrary systems and

supporting a variety of hardware and software products including Microsoft a n d N ovel l operating

systems a n d Microsoft appl ications" wh ich the u n ion sees as a responsi bi l ity to master and pass

on complex and techn ical information .

The u n ion submits this is a simi lar level of responsibil ity for information to that of position 23765,

the Network Support Special ist in the Rotman School of Management, which was classified as a

N S G 1 . O n h is QSD, the incumbent in that position ind icated responsib i l ity to create and

maintain network and server d iagrams, create and maintain system documentation , analyse

product and system documentatio n from vendors and produce simpler instructions as internal

procedu res.

That incumbent received a 40 at R E 1 in accordance with the fol lowing ag reed rationale for the

parties' app l ication of the factor language at that leve l :

1 6

I n formation is com plex and techn ical: writes specifications for new server hardware and software, programs and scripts; designs/develops websites; desig ns and documents network and system components.

The u n io n mainta ins that the incumbent in the position in d ispute has the same level of

responsib i l ity for communicating specifications of server hardware and software, as well as

design ing and imp lementing programs and system components, and asserts that the d uties and

QSO for the incumbent in position 29240 read very similarly to those of positions p laced i n NS

G 1 .

By contrast, the rationale for N S 02, the job class receiving a 2 5 under RE1 , is less of a good fit,

in the u n io n 's view. That ration a le reads as fo llows:

Col lecting and passing o n information e . g . mainta in ing records, verifying and providing routine information.

Position 30798, classified as NS 02, reports responsibi l ity for the fol lowing complex and techn ical

informatio n :

Network d iagrams, I P address i nformation , etc. W e update it, create it a n d imp lement t h e information contained therein .

System mon itoring o f ind ividual computers and the network. Ana lyze this information· to determine through put, performance issues, bottlenecks.

The u n ion submits that the important d istinction is between a level of responsib i l ity that involves

largely passing on information , at NS 02, and the responsibi l ity to develop information about the

hardware and software systems required in the admin istration of the network, at NS G 1 . The NS

02 level of responsibi l ity is consistent with the front-l ine support ro le where a member of the IT

staff is largely troubleshooting issues, and responding to routin e enquiries, in the u nion 's view.

The incumbent in the position in d ispute , on the other hand , is responsible for info rmatio n about

the configuration of the hardware and software of the network, because of the responsibi l ity for

managing the network, wh ich is a level of responsibil ity above verify ing information and

maintain ing records, in the u n ion 's su bmissio ns.

By contrast, the U n iversity arg ues that the incumbent in the position in d ispute is requ ired to

col lect information from users by interpreting requests and then d isseminate the responses, work

wh ich fa l ls within the level 25 rating . Further, the fact that the incumbent ind icates, with the

Manager's agreement, that the job involves interpreting users' techn ical requests via phone,

emai l , or i n-person does not mean that the position needs to be rated at level 4 0 for this factor

due to the factor level's language " information is . . . technical. " Simi larly, the fact that the

incumbent reports documenting techn ical steps and procedu res with screen captures and

1 7

creating FAQs on the help desk ticketing system does not qual ify for Level 40 simply because the

i ncumbent has used the word "techn ical", in the employer's submission.

The employer sees the incumbent's work doing screen captures and creatin g 'frequently asked

questions' , manag ing a l ist of computers, user accounts, n etwork printers, and computer pol icies

on servers, as methods of col lecting existing information, and therefore work which fa l ls within

level 25's factor language.

As for the example of making changes to the layout of the hel p desk ticketing system, the

employer argues that it fa l ls within level 25's factor language of 'formatting documents' ( by way of

modifying the look and usability of the ticketing system). Further, it sees the work of reviewing

n ew user account application forms and access requests as fa l l ing within level 25 's factor

language of 'verifying information. ' Based on the principle of best fit, the U n iversity contends that

level 25 is the best fit for this factor.

In response, the union submits that the language in the rationale for award ing level 40 to Job

C lass NS G 1 , which refers to writin g specifications, desig n i n g and d ocumenting system

components, speaks to the responsibility for the techn ical information that is required in the rol e

of admin istering the network, work n ot captured in the rationale for level 2 5 for NS 02. I n this

respect, the union sees the incumbent's J O as clearly ind icating responsibi l ity for communicatio n

a t the level of the n etwork and the essential connections to central un iversity a n d library systems,

and thus related to his technical responsibi l ities. I n the union's submission, the fact that this is a

technical function, involving techn ical information, rather than just talking to other IT staff, makes

it part of the higher level duty , rather than just troub leshooting , which is how the union sees the

N S 02 level of work.

I n response to the submissions just above, employer's counsel emphasized the view that at the

higher levels, the factor language requires that an employee do something with the informatio n ,

such a s producing a report, rather than just reviewing information o r passing i t on. The employer

cautions agai nst the ten d ency to thin k that simply because an employee is working in IT, the

responsibi l ity for informatio n warrants level 40 as complex and techn ical.

The employer's position is that the position in d ispute is wel l described at level 25 "co l lecting and

passing on information." They do n ot agree with the un ion 's submissions that the changes to the

help desk system performed by the incumbent involved editing , or that the incumbent's role goes

beyond "verifying" as set out i n the rationale at level 25.

1 8

I n considering the above submissions, I start with the basic point that the parties have d istributed

agreed scores for responsib i l ity for informatio n in the hierarchy of IT jobs in a way that makes it

abundantly clear that not a l l IT work attracts a level 40, despite the fact that IT work might be

considered technical by definition to many of those outside that fie ld of work. It is also clear that

the work of finding computer solutions for users who experience difficulty with their hardware o r

software, a n d exp lain ing them, has, by agreement, attracted level 25 for the support positions a t

NS 02. Leve l 40, accord ing to the agreed rationale , is reserved for j o b s with the duty to write

specifications for new server hardware and software, programs and scri pts, design or develop

websites or design and document network a n d system components. I t does n ot focus on the

"much sensitive/confidential" aspect of the factor language at level 40.

The question becomes whether Level 40, as appl ied by the parties in the ir agreed scheme of IT

jobs, is the best fit for the i ncumbent's work. It is certain ly not an easy fit with the user support

work of the position, one of the two main categories i n the incumbent's JD. These are prominent

in the purpose and duties of the position as described in both the JD and QSD, a lthough n o

percentage of the total workload i s attributed to this, o r any, of the incumbent's d uties. The other

major category in the JD, technical responsibi l it ies, include assisting with the admin istration and

effectiven ess of the Faculty 's networks, maintain ing communication to centra l un ivers ity and

Library systems, and assistin g in the deve lopment of new systems, specified as mostly

customizing off-the-shelf packages. There is no mention of writing specifications, programs,

scripts or designing n etwork and system components. This is to be contrasted with the job

description for the e l iminated position 1 9 1 88, which expl icitly provided responsib i l ity for

specification and desig n of the network, as wel l as the requirement to con d uct independent

analyses, interpret and determine conclusion s involving complex programs and systems, none of

which appears in the incumbent's JD or QSD. Comparisons to the JD's for other NS G 1 position s

in evidence yield simi lar conclusions. For instance, position 30 137, a lthough not as specific as

the JD for 191 88, has duties which engage a higher level of responsibi l ity for information , such as

the duty to assist in the des ign and development of software uti l ities, as we l l as to i nvestigate

security break-ins and n etwork traffic i nvolved in copyright infractions. Position 24334 is

responsib le for providing high level programming development for a web-based student and

employer system, and is responsible for recommending and overseeing the i n stal lation of new

systems and appl ications , as we l l as p laying a lead role in developing security and i nteg rity

procedures, a l l of which go wel l beyond the information duties ind icated for the position in

d ispute.

Further, position 23429, a lthough having user interaction duties that are simi lar to the i ncumbent

i n the position in dispute, also has duties s imi lar to those of position 301 37, such as assisting in

1 9

design and investigating security break-ins and copyright infractions, which bespeak a level of

responsibi l ity for information beyon d those demonstrated in the material for the position in

d ispute.

The union also referred to position 23765, who reported the responsibi l ity for creating and

maintain ing network and server d iagrams, and creating and maintain ing system documentation ,

which the union argues shows a s imi lar level of responsib i l ity for information as the position i n

dispute. Although there is overlap in duties between this a n d others o f the NS G1 jobs, a n d that

of the position in dispute, there are a lso duties which take the duties in relation to responsibility

for information beyond that of position 29240. For instance, although both positions have

troubleshooting duties, position 23765 is squarely responsible for the development, admin istration

and p lanning of several servers, and complex network and systems support as well as support to

the development team and prog ramming duties, which fit considerably better with the rationale at

Level 40 than those of the position in d ispute, categorized in the J D as assisting with

admin istration of the n etworks and providing support. I n general , I fi nd that the NS G 1

comparators are not s o simi lar in duties that consistency would require the same level o f ratin g

for R E 1.

Looking to the N S 02 comparators in evidence, there is much more simi larity to the duties of the

position i n dispute. For instance, position 30798 has user assistance duties that are very simi lar

to those of the position i n d ispute in regards to network and user support. There is a complexity

to the networks dealt with by that i ncumbent flowing from their distribution over 10 campus

bui ld ings and remote sites such as a hospital , not dissimi lar to the geographica l d istribution of the

Faulty of Kinesiology's networks dealt with by the position in d ispute. Both positions d o

installations, network configurations , network support a n d troubleshooting without overall

responsibi l ity for the administration of the networks.

As a result of the above considerations, I fin d RE1 at level 25 to be the better fit, as between the

scores for the competing job classes, Moreover, the m13terial does not estab l ish that any of the

intervening levels would be more appropriate . For instance, it was not establ ished that the

parties have attributed Level 30 to IT staff responsible for writing FAQ's or reconfiguring products

l ike OISE's help desk software, or that the parties have considered such material as warranting a

level 35 as marketing or outreach materials. As noted above, there is some responsib i l ity for

simi lar duties in position 30798 in regards to FAQ, and the ag reed score for that position is 25 for

RE1.

20

I n the result, I fi nd that the material before me su pports an R E 1 rating of 25, consistent with the

N S D2 job class.

4. RE2 - Res ponsibi l ity for Materials, Eq u ipment a nd/or O utcomes

This factor is intended to measure the responsibi l ity for materia ls , equipment, and/or outcomes,

including the cost and/or i mpact if a n error is made. Raters are d i rected to consider the scope of

responsibi l ity for the use and a l location of resources and the i mpact of errors inc luding: the

impact on the effective operation of teaching and research facil ities; the successful conduct of

projects and specific research programs; the efficiency and effectiveness of admin istrative,

techn ical , or mechanical functions/processes which support the goals and objectives of the

U n iversity.

The factor ratings in dispute for this factor are 25 , favoured by the un iversity, as opposed to 30

sought by the un ion , described as fol lows:

( I ) S I G N I F ICANT RESPONS I B I LITY FOR MATERIALS, E Q U I P M ENT AND/OR 0 U T C 0 M E S -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 5

(responsible for the use of resources as it affects the activities and work flow i n a department or for a major project or major research program; cost of errors is sign ificant to a department or major project or major research program, and may have a sig n ificant short-term effect o n ind iv iduals or have ind irect impact on research projects.)

( I I ) S I G N I F ICANT R E S P O N S I B I L ITY FOR MATERIALS, E Q U I P M E NT AND/OR 0 U T C 0 M E S ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 0 ( responsible for the use of resou rces as it affects the activities and work flow i n a d epartment or for a major project or major research program; cost of errors is highly sign ificant to a department or major project or major research prog ram, and has a d i rect impact on e .g . a s ing le research project, or a short-term effect on groups, or academic or financial impact on students.)

The union arg ues that the impact of errors by the incumbent in the position i n d ispute wou ld be

highly sign ificant and thus the job is deserving of a rating of level 30 .

The J D l ists the following under Outcome/ Consequence of Error:

The incumbent establ ishes his/her own work schedule and priorities based upon user req u irements i n concert with Facu lty n eeds as identified and in consu ltation with the Director (and/or Systems Ad ministrator) . The incumbent exercises judgement and d iscretion in dea l ing with a l l computing related matters and determin ing which u se r inqu iries or problems should b e referred t o other special ist Fai lure to deal with computer and local network prob lems efficiently cou ld result in delaying Faculty work, delays in prod ucing material for teaching , delays i n provid ing access to information to support teaching and research, possible loss of data and violation of confidential ity requ irements Fai lure to deal with computer users in a professional manner cou ld result in lack of confidence in the computing techno logy and poor publ ic relations.

2 1

E rror in this job could resu lt in a d isaster.

Most of these elements were reiterated on the QSD.

The u n io n observes that the language of the J D speaks to a h igh level of sig n ificance: errors

cou ld result in disaster. I n the un ion's view, this ind ication i n the J D con nects with the fact that

the incumbent is responsible for admin istering the network for the Facu lty, a n d an error could

cause a loss of data , loss of fun ctiona lity , or a breach of confidential ity, al l h igh ly sign ificant.

Those i n cumbents placed in N S G1 received a 30 under R E2 in accordance with the fo l lowing

agreed rationale:

Cost of errors is h ig h ly sign ificant to a department- costly and time consum ing delays and wasted expend itu re or missed dead l ines; unrecoverable loss of business or research data, loss of network services; security breaches could result in loss of reputation/resources for the department; serious errors cou ld lead to sign ificant financial expense a nd/or waste of labour throughout the department.

The U n ion sees the impact of a security breach as central to the rationale. As the incumbent in

d ispute maintains network and server security as a key duty, the un ion a rgues that the incumbent

i n the position in d ispute sq uarely fits th is rationale.

The rationale for an agreed R E2 of 25 for job class N S 02 is as fol lows:

Cost of errors is s ign ificant to the department; fa i lure to maintain hardware and software wou ld be d etrimental to the operation of the department, resu lting in potential loss of data , i naccessib i l ity of website, and the inabi l ity of department staff to maintain operations.

In the u n ion's view, the important d ifference is the question of secu rity/confidential ity issues.

Althoug h the impact of an error of the incumbent in dispute could be loss of data , or

inaccessibi l ity of the website, the impact goes beyond this to matters such as n etwork security

and confidential ity, that are h ig h ly sign ificant to the Faculty, and thus is better recog nized at Level

30, in the un ion's submission .

By contrast, the u n iversity maintains that level 25 best fits the data provided, n oting that, on the

QSD, the incumbent identified a short-term impact/cost of error as possibly "network/servers

access delay." The employer a rgues that these types of delays or errors by the h older of position

2 9240 would have a sig n ificant effect on the ind ividuals using or accessing Faculty data but

would be short term. In the employer's view, this is because there is bui lt-i n error checking by

way of the reporting structure and work review by the Senior Systems Admin istrator. This more

sen ior position, from which the d isputed position takes dai ly d i rection, is rated at level 40 for this

factor, denoting responsibi l ity for a major d ivision of the u n iversity. As wel l , the employer does

22

not ag ree with the union 's assertio n that the position i n d ispute is responsible for n etworking

security.

I n response to this structural argument, the union submits that the prob lem is that that is n ot the

distinction between the levels in the factor descriptions. U n ion counsel notes that level 25 speaks

of short-term impact on ind ividuals whi le level 30 is aimed at short-term impact on g roups. In the

union's view, s ince the incumbent's work is on the network, it wi l l impact g roups as well as

ind ividuals.

Further, in the union's submission the agreed rationale for R E2, level 30 , refers to loss of network

services and security breaches. I n the union's view, this speaks to the theme of the

admin istration of the network, which is instructive in comparison to jobs agreed to belong i n job

class NS 02. On the QSO, the incumbent points to failure to deal with prob lems as de laying

faculty teachin g , access to information , support research, and confidentiality, which engages the

secu rity issue. According ly the union sees level 30 as the best fit.

As with other factors, in considering these arguments, I start with the fact that the parties have

agreed on rationales for the various levels of ratings which raters are required to take into

account as part of the overall effort at consistency throughout the system , and within the

hierarchy of IT jobs. In the rationa les for a l l three levels of rating for RE2 re levant to this d ispute,

25 consistent with NS 02, 30 consistent with NS G 1 a n d 40 for NS K1 , security issues are

engaged, but each at a different level . I n the rationale at level 25 potential l oss of d ata and

inabi l ity of staff to maintain operations are noted . At level 30, the contemplated results are more

specific and wider reaching , such as unrecoverable loss of data, or security breaches lead ing to

loss of reputation or resources. At level 40, long term effect on groups o r i n d iv iduals due to

failure to provide or ensure security for networks and computer sites is mentioned. This is

consistent with the increasing level of responsibi l ity for the work with the n etwork. However, it is

most notable that anyone working on a network could compromise the network, but the parties

have not chosen to give everyone who works on the n etwork the same rati n g .

Thus, a lthough I accept the union's submission that the factor description language d o e s not

specify distinctions based on organ izational structure, I find in this case that the g radation s are

nonetheless con sistent with that structure and the extent of responsib i l ity for the n etwork that

goes with it.

As for the d ifference of opin ion between the parties about the extent of the i ncumbent's

responsibi l ity for security, I note that the J O specifies back-ups to prevent loss of data , but no

23

other specific duties in th is respect. I n the QSD, reviewing appl ications for access and verify ing

authorization information is mentioned under access to information . I do not find these d uties in

relation to security to be sig n ificantly broader than those of position 30798, agreed at N S 02 with

level 25 for SK2 . Those duties include performing network main tenance and responding to

requests related to secu rity issues. The manager for that position specifical ly n oted loss of data

and security issues as relevant to the impact of errors flowing from that position 's work.

By contrast, I find the level of responsibility for security described in the materials to be

sign ificantly less than that for the agreed NS G1 positions, such as position 23765 which is

responsib i le to secu re the networks at the Rotman School of M anagement, position 30 1 37,

responsib le to inform users of secu rity issues, out l in ing problems and possible resolutions ,

monitor and analyze secu rity of the servers and investigate security break-ins or position 24334

which is responsible to e nsure data integ rity and secu rity of the Career Centre's web appl ications

and plays a lead role in d evelopment and maintain ing network secu rity and integrity proced u res.

Given the important goal of consistency with in the IT hierarchy as expressed by the variation s in

the rationales for the ratin g level for RE 2 d iscussed above, I find level 25 to be a much better fit.

5. RE4 - F i nancial Responsibi l ity

With th is factor, raters are to consider the requ irement to deal with money, either handl ing it, or i n

terms o f responsibi l ity for budgets or decision making about spend i n g .

T h e u n ion and employer argue for levels 1 5 a n d 20 respectively, described a s follows:

Ll MITED I NVOLVEMENT I N Fl NANCES ------------------------------------------------1 5 ( l imited hand l ing of smal l amounts, such as smal l petty cash funds o r l im ited responsib i l ity for issuing receipts or hand l ing fees or fines; no independent decisions about budgets o r spend ing . For example: occasional hand l ing of expenses for events, recording or verifying transactions on a s ing le account; no budgeting . )

SOME F I NANCIAL TRANSACTI ON S-------------------------------------------------------2 0 (hand l ing of petty cash and/or fees, fines etc. on a reg ular basis; some responsib i l i ty for record ing . For example: d iscretion to make minor purchases; col laborates on cost estimates; manages petty cash , enters timesheet data; intermittently handles a n d processes cheques; record ing o f a few accou nts, including payrol l )

There is n o mention of any financial responsib i l ity i n the J D or the Q S D of the position i n d ispute.

H owever, the un ion notes that the question naire does not ask incumbents if they col laborate on

cost estimates, wh ich the u nion sees as a key financial responsibi l ity for those who admin ister

networks. Noting that the n eeds of the network are withi n the incumbent's expertise and a mbit of

responsibi l ity, the u n ion submits that the incumbent is responsible for the admin istration of the

24

n etwork and for the development of n ew systems, inc luding n eeds assessment, and therefore

participation in cost estimates regard ing hardware and software must be part of the job.

The following duties l isted on the JD are seen as su pporting this view of the position 's

responsibilities:

Assisting with the admin istration and on-going effectiveness of the Faculty's networks. Mainta in ing communication to Central U n iversity and Library systems a n d su pportin g a variety of hardware and software products includ ing M icrosoft and N ovel l operating systems and Microsoft appl ications

Assisting in the development of new systems, mostly customizing/config uring of the shelf packages, as req uired, from needs assessments through design phase, QNA and implementation

Further, the union observes that it is common for incumbents in IT positions to ind icate on the

q uestion naire that they have no financial responsibi l ities because they do not ten d to have the

sort of transactional responsibi l ity best caught by the questions on the QSD. The u n ion n otes

that the parties addressed this as a part of the IT g lobal deal when they adjusted the R E4 rating

u pwards for many of the IT job classes. For example, both positions 24334 and 23765 ind icated

they had no financial responsibi l ities and were placed as NS G1 with a rating of 20 u nder R E4 in

accordance with the fol lowing rationale:

Some financial transactions, e.g. discretion to make minor purchases ( u nder $5,000) ; researches and recommends and equipment and component needs and p u rchases.

In the u n ion's view, the incumbent in the position in dispute sho u ld be seen as also perfo rming

the role of researching and recommending equ ipment and component needs a n d purchases

referred to in this rationale. The un ion sees the provision s of the JD referri ng to assisting in the

development of new systems, from needs assessment through the design phase, as ind icating

such a level of responsib i l ity, similar to jobs agreed to be p laced in the NS G1 job class.

The employer d isag rees with the un ion's l ine of arg ument noting that the factor measures the

responsibi l ity for financial decisions, not just being consulted . I n terms of the needs assessment

referred to in the JD, the employer sees this as relating to what is needed from the user po int of

view, a d ifferent function than what RE4 is measuring . The employer su bmits that the factor

requ i res some responsibi l ity for cost, evidenced by activities such as a d uty to research different

products and services, or sourcing supp l ies, to justify the higher rating . Since they do n ot see

that in the materia l , it is the employer's position that level 1 5 is the better fit.

H aving considered the a bove arg uments, I accept that it is possible that the incumbent may have

some i nput into cost estimates, but the evidence for that is not strong, bei ng an inference from

25

- - - -- - - --- - - --- - - ---- ---- - --------- - - ------------------------------ - - -- ---- --- � - -- -�-�--- --�- -- � -�- -

---

I

phrases such as "needs assessment" and "assisting i n the development of n ew systems". The

clearest evidence avai lable to me is the statement o n the QSD by the incumbent, agreed to by

the manager, that there are no financial responsibi lities, but I a lso accept that some N S G 1

positions were agreed t o b e in that j o b class, despite s imi lar entries on their QSD's.

Nonetheless, I also note that, although position 24334 and 23765 ind icated no fin ancial

responsibi l ities o n their QSD's, their JD's g ive duties which lend more support for a n inference of

some role in cost estimates than that of the position in d ispute. For instance, position 24334 has

the duty on his JD to actively participate in the investigation and eva luation of products and

services to determine their applicabi l ity to the req uirements of the Career Centre , in which

research, he may consult with vendors, developers and other professionals. This is very close to

the lang uage in the rationale for g iving the higher level to NS G1 jobs. As for position 23765, its

role in research for the eva luation of prod ucts, if a ny, is not specified, but the J D l ists specific

roles in areas such as capacity plann ing and reg u lar contact with third-party vendors and service

providers to ensure timely resolution of service calls, which has more of a l i n k to costs than the

material ind icates for the position in d ispute.

Looking at e lements of the rationale for RE4 at 20 for NS G 1 , there is no evidence of any

discretion to make minor purchases, or of any duty to research and recommend equ ipment and

component needs for the position in d ispute. Turn ing to the rationale for R E4 at 1 5 for N S D2,

there is n ot even a strong case for the "minimal financial responsibilities" necessary to attract that

level. N onethe less, I find it to be the better fit, as closer to the clearest evidence, which is that

there are no financial responsibi l ities.

6. RE5 - Responsibi l ity to Manage or Direct Oth ers

This factor requ ires the consideration of the extent of management responsib i l ities req uired of the

job. Raters are directed to consider the gu idance, d i rection and/or reporting or review of

performance req u ired by the position , as well as the responsibility for managing , or d i recting staff

of diverse backgrounds and experience. The employer a rgues for level 20, whi le the u n ion

favou rs level 25, the factor descriptions for which read as fol l ows:

( I ) MANAGES OR DI RECTS S MALL GROUP I N L I M ITED AREA -----------------20 Uob e ntai ls responsibi l ity for the management or d i rection of a smal l defi n ed gro u p i n limited area. Some respons ibi l ity for d i recting the activities of up t o 3 ongoing employees; or short-term casuals; assigns and checks work of work-study students; d i rects work of casual employees in defined activities (not ongoing); selects placement students - no supervisio n ; coaches; serves as a resource to a g roup or o n a function . )

( I I ) MANAGES OR DIRECTS SMALL GROU P I N L I M ITED AREA ----------------25 Uob enta i ls responsibi l ity for the management or d i rection of a smal l g ro u p in a l im ited area with some performance review responsib i l it ies, responsible for sched u l ing , a nd /or

26

workflow. For example: full responsibi l ity for d i recting the activities of a s ingle ongoing employee; or supervises some activities for a smal l g roup; supervises longer-term casua ls; serves as a resource on specific issues to a group of special ists . )

The JD l ists the fol lowing duties which the union submits are relevant to this factor:

Assisting with the admin istration and o n -going effectiveness of the Faculty 's n etworks. Mainta in ing communication to Central U n iversity and Library systems and supporting a variety of hardware and software products includ ing M icrosoft and N ovell operating systems and Microsoft applications Recommends tra i n ing courses for staff to the Manager of Ad min istrative Services Performing da ily backups of data stored in the servers to ensure no loss of Faculty data Assisting in the development of new systems, mostly customizing/configuring of the shelf packages, as required , from needs assessments through design phase, Q NA and implementation I nformation management-integ rating information needs of users across p latforms throug h general advice and assistance in creating simple queries and database structures

On the QSD, the incumbent ind icates the following, wh ich the union sees as provid ing tech n ical

instruction to other staff:

Document techn ical steps and procedures with screen captures precisely; create and maintain a l l the FAQs o n the help desk ticketin g system.

The incumbent indicates that he serves as a resource to others a n d explains as fo l lows:

Analyze and troubleshoot techn ical prob lems when members of the tech n ical support g roup are unable to resolve the p roblems; provide my own perceptions and recommendations to others for techn ical issues and IT projects.

The manager agrees to the incumbent's response on this section.

The union sees the question as how specia l ized of a resource the incumbent is , as the factor

description language at Leve l 25, "serves as a resource on specific issues to a g roup of

special ists" d iffers from that of Level 20 in the reference to special ization. I n this regard , the

union submits that the incumbent serves as a resource on specific issues, i .e . the admin istration

and security of the network, to special ists, i .e. members of the tec h n ical support staff, as wel l as

acting as the project leade r on the help desk ticketing system used by the Faculty.

Turning to a comparison with jobs placed in NS G1 , they received a level 25 rating under R E 5 i n

accordance with the following rationale:

Acts as a resource on specific issues to a g roup of special ist (acts as a tier 2 IT support personne l ) ; assumes responsibility for an activity or project by provid ing techn ical leadersh ip , system expertise a nd support to other techn ical staff.

27

The incumbent i n the position i n dispute reports serving as a tier 2 IT support, and the manager

agrees. This distinguishes it from the generalized resource at level 20, awarded to N S 02, who,

i n the union's view, serve solely as front- l ine support. The rationale for award ing Level 20 to that

job class is as fo l lows:

Serves as a resource to others on a l l computer related questions and recommend n ew tech nology for the workplace.

Level 25 for RE5 was also g iven to the h ig her rated NS K1 job class. This is the agreed job class

for the position which g ives functional d irection to the incumbent, with the fol lowing articulated

rationale:

Project Management - Assumes responsibi l ity for a n activity or project by providing technica l leadersh ip , system expertise and support to other techn ical staff.

Add ressing the potential argument that both the position who g ives functiona l d i rection and the

position receiving that d i rection ought not to be receiving the same rating for this factor, union

counsel observes that NS G1 and NS K1 received the same ratin g , but for d ifferent reasons, and

so there would be no inco n sistency in having them both rated at the same for this factor. Counsel

n otes that the rationale for award ing NS K1 a level 2 5 has a focus on project managing while for

N S G1 , the focus is on acting as Tier 2 support. The union submits that It may wel l be that the

NS K1 job class has more responsib i l ity to manage others, but n ot enough to get 30, so that

they are on the h igh end of Level 25 for RE5, but are more h igh ly rated than NS G1 on other

factors, justifying their overall h ig her rating.

The un ion supports its argument that the position in d ispute has duties consistent with the NS G1

job class, by referring to the entries on the QSD ind icating that the incumbent serves as a

resource i n a way wh ich suggests the Tier 2 role, in that he analyzes problems when members of

the technical support group are unable to resolve them. This escalation of problems to the

i ncumbent when others are unable to solve them, is the Tier 2 role recog nized in the rationale for

award ing NS G1 jobs Level 25 at RE5, in the union's submission.

By contrast, employer counsel argues that the position in d ispute is not properly seen as Tier 2,

because, in the context of the position's relationsh ip with his NS K1 col league, the latter is the

Tier 2 position. This is supported by reference to the JD for position 2 9240, which provides,

under the heading "Outcome/Consequence of Error" that the incumbent exercises judgment and

d iscretio n in deal ing with a l l computing related matters and determin ing which user inquiries or

problems should be referred to another specialist.

28

Having considered the above arguments, it is my view that there is support for the element of the

rationale for level 25 for the NS G1 job class which refers to serving as resou rce to others o n

specific issues in that the incu mbent a n d the manager agree that h e analyzes problems that

others can not solve. However, there is sign ificantly less support for the second element of that

rationale, i .e . "assumes responsib i l ity for an activity or project by provid ing techn ical leadership ,

system expertise and support to other techn ical staff." This is because there is o n ly one example

of leadership, the he lp desk reconfig uration, which as d iscussed above, u nder SK5 does not

solidly establ ish a reg ular d uty of project leadership. On the other hand, the rationale for award ing

level 20 to job class NS 02 is a good fit, as the material makes clear that the job is req u i red to

serve as a resource to a wide variety of others, including 150 users. The fact, agreed to by the

manager, that the incu mbent acts as a resource to other techn ical staff as well , is not

incompatib le with NS D2's rat ionale, but does overlap with that of NS G1. Nonetheless, the fact

that there is no indication i n the material of what proportion of the job's t ime is taken u p with

acting as a resource to other techn ica l staff makes it d ifficu lt to assess whether it is a minor or

major part of the job. I n genera l , however, I find the rationale for award ing NS 02 a level 20

covers the range of duties articulated in the JD more comfortably. Nonetheless, the overlap

means that if NS G1 is otherwise the best fit, this factor is not an obstacle to p lacing the position

in that job class, despite the fact that project leadership does not appear to be a d istinctive part of

the job.

7. W01 - Te m perature, Noise and other Environmenta l Conditions

With this factor, the job eva luation system takes into accou nt the conditions u nder which the work

is performed and the average exposure to disagreeable elements.

The employer argues for level 10, whi le the u n ion arg ues for level 15, the factor language for

which is as follows:

OFFICE ENVI R O N M ENT, N ORMAL COM FORT L EVEL -----------------------------10 (work environment is clean and varies little from a normal comfort level : heated in winter, air-cond itioned in summer, no exposure to outside con d it ions with l ittle s ign ificant background or machinery n oises . )

OCCASIONAL EXPOSU R E TO A DISAGR EEAB L E ELE M E NT -------------------15

On his QSD, the incumbent reports regular exposu re to uncomfortable changing or extreme

temperatures and noise, and that he assembles and d isassembles computer hardware, both with

the manager's agreement. The u n io n argues that the insta l lation of n ew hardware exposes the

incumbent to no ise associated with that task and the function ing of the technology. In the u n ion's

submission this is similar to jobs placed in NS G1, which were rated at level 15 under W0 1 in

accordance with the fol lowing rationale:

29

Occasional exposure to a d isag reeable element, e . g . whi le performing i n stal lations of hardware and cables (noise) .

By contrast, NS 02 was awarded level 1 0 , with the fol lowing rationale:

Normal office environment

The employer observes i n its brief that the separate, undisputed factor, W04, "Work I nterru ptions

and Distractions", recogn izes the effect of n oise, essentia l ly an arg ument that it is already

accounted for. In argu ment, employer cou nsel asserted that the n oise referred to in the rationale

should be seen as noise whi le performing instal lation, such as coming from breaking wal ls d u ring

construction , not from assembl ing hardware. The un ion rep l ies that the server room is also very

loud, and that even though W04 deals with n oise as a d istraction , W0 1 clearly deals with it as an

environmental factor as well .

On balance , I find Leve l 1 5 to be the better fit, as Level 1 0 req u ires " l ittle s ign ificant backgrou nd

or machinery noise". By contrast, the rationale at Level 1 5 for N S 02 acknowledges that there is

exposure to noise involved i n the instal lation of hardware and cable , without any ind ication that it

is l imited to construction s ituations.

8 . W02 - H azards

This factor is intended to consider the extent to which the job req uires exposure to short or long

term health or accident r isks includ ing biohazards and rad iation . The com peting levels are 20

and 25, as fol lows:

( I ) S 0 M E HAZARD ---------------------�--------------------------------------------------------2 0 (some hea lth or accident risk where possible effect on h ealth is l imited. For example: low level electric shock; exposure to chemicals, solvents, g lues and other chemicals; c l imbing ladders; risk of back injury; exposure to risk of overuse i njury associated with repetitive motion for more than 2 but less than 4 hours at a time.)

( I I ) SOME HAZARD -----------------------------------------------------------------------------2 5 (some health o r accident risk where l imited effect on hea lth is more l i kely. For exa mple: regular exposure to dangerou s su bstances; cuts and burns; harm from chemica l b u rns; mach ine shop work; exposure to risk of overuse inj u ry associated with repetitive motion for 4 hours)

The u n ion argues for Level 20 based on the fact that the incumbent reports performing repetitive

movements every day for more than 4 hours and the manager agrees in the section of the QSD

ded icated to P hysical Effort. The incumbent a lso ind icates exposure to electric shock, cuts,

burns, and rad iation in the H azards portion of the QSD. The manager d isagrees with the latter

writing that "risks are min imum".

30

The u n ion notes that the req u i rement of repetitive movement every day for more than four hours ,

with which the manager agreed, results i n "Repetitive motion" being automatical ly selected u nder

the Hazards section of the QSO. The u n ion submits that this aspect of the work a lone is enough

to warrant a level 25 under W02, which was the rationale for award i n g i t to the NS G 1 job class.

By contrast, NS 02 received level 20 with the rationale: " Repetitive motion for more than 2 but

less than 4 hours at a time."

The u n iversity's brief takes the position that this repetitive motion is accounted for in E F2,

physical effort, about which there is no d ispute. Moreover, the risk is mitigated, in the employer's

su bmissions, by the requ i rement that the incumbent take a break period ical ly , which he

acknowledged in the QSO. The employer notes that the QSO calls for both the information about

. exposure, and information about protectio n or mitigation of risk.

In response, the un ion submits that the break does not change the level of the hazard in that the

factor description rel ies on exposure to the hazard , not the level of mitigation avai lable.

This factor, in the n ine avai lable rating levels, measures both level of exposure and level of r isk to

health. At some of the levels, such as the ones here in contention, the relevant examples define

the level of risk. Some of these examples are less precise than others, such as " low level"

electric shock. H owever, for repetitive motion, the parties have been very specific. A d ifferent

level of r isk is defined when the repetitive motion reaches 4 hours at a time. O n the QSO, that

level is ind icated, with managerial agreement, so that there is sol id s u pport for level 25 .

Nonetheless, i t is true that whether or n ot there is repetitive motion for 4 hours "at a time" as a

factua l matter wou ld be affected by whether there was a break with i n any 4 hour period. The

material is not specific about this, but I take from the fact that jobs that tend to have more user

support and commu nication d uties, such as those at NS 02, received the level reflecting

repetitive motion betwee n two and four hours at a time, that the contact with the users may

i nterrupt constant repetitive motion . Given that the position in d ispute is a job with both user

support and tra in ing d uties, it may well be that there are periods or days when the repetitive

motion does not go on for fou r hours "at a time". Given these considerations, I fi n d Leve l 25 to be

the better fit, but do not find the su pport for that so strong that level 20 would not be a viable leve l .

Which job c lass?

I n general , the u n ion states that a l l the factors i n dispute point to a s ign ificantly h ig her level of

responsibi l ity and skill than the position's existing classification at NS 02 recog n izes. Continu ing

to place th is position in the NS 02 job class wou ld be to sign ificantly u nderva l u e and u nderpay

3 1

the position , according to the un ion . The typical NS 02 position is seen as having a smal ler scope

of responsibi l ity and a g reater focus on d i rect user support than that of position 2 9240. In the

u n ion's view, the best fit is NS G1 which is broadly disting uished from NS 02 by duties

admin isterin g the network, rather than just being ded icated to user support and front-l ine

troubleshooting .

The u n io n a lso argued that considerab le weight shou ld be g iven to the manager's agreement with

statements written by the incumbent on the QSO in support of h is view that h i s job should be

reclassified u pwards. After stating that the J O "somewhat reflects my duties and responsibi l ities",

the incumbent in the position i n d ispute went o n to add that the job title and pay sca le did not

reflect his system administration work in comparison to jobs whose J O's he sees as nearly

identical to his own, so that the job should be reclassified to NS G 1 at Pay Band 1 2 . The un ion

emphasizes that the manager agreed to such statements in two places i n the QSO. I t is the

u n ion's position that sign ificant persuasive value should be ascribed to the manager's agreement

as to this position's placement i n the overa l l h ierarchy of the u n it. The u n io n n otes that the

manager is responsible for u nderstanding the job eva luation system, not o n ly because he is

commenting on behalf of the U n iversity on the questionnaire, but a lso because the job evaluation

process itself depends on managers' u nderstanding the system as, for example, reclassification

requests can be in itiated by managers, and the managers play a role in determin ing whether

positions h ave changed s ign ificantly enough to merit reclassification under the job evaluation

system.

At the heari n g , the employer submitted that fo l low-up conversations with the manager clarified

that he d id n ot see the position in d ispute at the NS G 1 level . Rather, the manager was of the

v iew that the incumbent was functioning as a n Assistant Systems Admin istrator, correspond ing to

the NS 02 job class rather than a Systems Admin istrator. This is in l ine with the employer's

overa l l position that the job in d ispute is wel l classified at NS 02, referring to comparator jobs

which the u n iversity argues have simi lar levels of responsibi l ities, and which were ag reed to by

the u n ion at NS 02.

When eval u ating these arguments, as noted earlier, one is looking for the best fit, al l the whi le

recognizing that jobs need o n ly be simi lar, rather than identical, to coexist in the same job class,

and that there wil l be jobs at the h igher and lower ends of each job class. The parties h ave

agreed to a series of job classes, often with m u ltiple incumbents, in the network s u pport area with

establ ished agreed scores for each factor, among which are NS 02 and NS G 1 . The parties a lso

have the option of creating un ique job classes where the scoring is tai lored to a specific job, and

32

the union argued, in the alternative, if I d id not find the job warranted N S G 1 , for a un ique

intermediate job class with the ratings I fou n d to be the best fit o n a factor by factor basis.

I have, as discussed above, considered this job on a factor by factor basis. As n oted , for most of

them, I have fou n d the score associated with NS 02 to be the best fit. Nonetheless, for W0 1 and

W02, the better fit was found at scores corresponding to N S G 1 . As wel l , there are some, such

as SK2 and RE5, for which I noted that, in l ight of the nature of the evidence or factor descriptio n

or rationale, the h ig her level was viable i f overa l l N S G 1 was t h e better fit a s a j o b class. I n the

end , I do not find that to be the case . None of the factors which could overlap the h igher job class

demonstrate eleme nts of the job so out of l i n e with the levels ag reed for job class NS 02 that they

warrant moving the position into N S G 1 . Nor does the material persuade me that the job is

sufficiently un ique to warrant a unique job class.

I have also carefu l ly reviewed al l the comparator job descriptio n s and q uesti o n n aires provided by

the parties, as d iscussed i n the context of the factor by factor ana lysis. Althoug h there are

portions of the job d escriptions and q u estionnaires that are s imi lar, despite the d ifferent levels of

a l location to job classes, I am simi larly not persuaded, on the basis of comparisons at the level of

the jobs considered more as a whole, that the position in d ispute is sufficiently dissimi lar to the

jobs at the NS 02 level that it is in an inappropriate classificatio n .

A s t o t h e manager's statements o f agreement t o sections o f t h e QSD i n w h i c h the incu m bent

speaks of h is disagreement with h is current classification , I fin d them certa i n ly relevant, and I

have taken them i nto accou nt. However, I do not find , in a l l the circumstances, that they change

the outcome, in l ight of the other elements of the issues d iscussed in these reasons.

As to the u n ion's a rg u ment that the position in d ispute has moved into the work of the former NS

G 1 position d iscussed u nder factor S K5, I am not persuaded that th is is the case any more so

when the job is viewed more g lobal ly . The organ izational charts show that prior to the re­

organ ization , there were four bargain ing u n it IT positions reporting to the D i rector of IT, a n

excluded position . These included t h e Sen ior Systems Ad min istrator, a n d t h e position i n d ispute,

the Assistant Systems Administrator, wh ich are now described as the Systems Gro u p on the n ew

organ izational Chart. The i ntermediate Systems Admin istrator position was e l im inated . A pre­

existing Appl icatio n s Programmer position and th ree n ew cl ient support position s are n ow

referred to as the C l ient S upport Group . Referring to the fact that after the re-organ izatio n there

were more cl ient s u p port positions, cou nsel for the U n iversity submitted that the employer had

made the decision that there was n ot enough systems admin istration work remain ing to have the

intermediary positi o n , and they created three n ew cl ient s u pport roles to deal with the fact that

there was much more of that work than system su pport work. Counsel said that the P rogrammer

33

position was never a network position , and a l l in a l l , the situation is not that there was N S G 1

n etwork support work that h a s been taken up b y t h e incumbent. The materia l , read a s a whole,

and in its component parts, as d iscussed above in the factor by factor a n a lysis, has not convinced

me that this is an inaccu rate portrayal of the overa l l situation.

Al l i n a l l , I find the d uties of the position in dispute o n the Facu lty's networks correspon d wel l with

the NS 02 job class, its summaries, rationales and the corresponding factor d escription language.

As noted earl ier, th is is not a comment on the level of contribution or ta lent of the current

incumbent, but an eva luation , gu ided by the directives of the agreed job evaluation system, of

where the job best fits in the overal l scheme of IT jobs.

* * *

For the above reasons, i n l ight of a l l the evidence a n d helpfu l submission s before me, and having

regard to the importance of consistency with the appl ication of the factor language to the

ensemble of IT jobs as designed by the parties, I fi nd that job class NS 02 is the best fit for the

position in d ispute.

Dated at Toronto this 291h day of January, 201 4

�

34