BETWEEN: PACIFIC PRESS LIMITED (the ‘Employer’) AND: VANCOUVER-NEW WESTMINSTER NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 115 (the “Union”)
Kinzie
Judgment: May 23, 1991
Counsel: M. Grant Gayman and Ib Petersen, for the Employer Richard D. Covell, for the Union
Kinzie:
AWARD
I
1 This proceeding is concerned with a grievance by the incumbents in the Ledger Telephone Collector (hereinafter the “Collector”) position in which they seek reclassification of their position to “key rate* level. As of the date of their grievance, i.e., April 19, 1989F the incumbents in the Collector position were paid a minimum salary of $543.14 a week. The key rate at that same time was $911.53 a week.
2 The Union advances the collectors’ grievance under Article XXI (2) of the 1987-1990 collective agreement between the parties. That provision reads as follows:
”Should the Company create a new job (either regular or part-time), or, in the Guild’s estimation, substantially change the duties or functions of an existing job, compensation shall be negotiated. If agreement is not reached within two (2) months, the parties shall submit the issue for binding arbitration in accordance with Article VI – Grievance Procedure.”
3 It maintains that the Employer has over the years substantially changed the duties and functions of the Collector position such that a renegotiation of its rate is justified. It submits that when regard is had to where the new duties and functions assigned to the Collector position have come from, and when those current duties and functions are compared to the duties and functions of other positions at the key rate level such as the Outside Sales Representative position, the establishment of a new rate for the Collector position at the key rate level will be seen to be justified.
4 The Employer, on the other hand, takes the position that the grievance should be dismissed in its entirety. It maintains that the duties and functions of the Collector position have not substantially changed over the years. More particularly it says, there has not been such a change in the duties and functions of the Collector position during the term of the 1987-1990 collective agreement. Therefore, the establishment of a new rate for the position pursuant to Article XXI (2) of the agreement is not justified.
5 The Employer argues that the Employer and the Union negotiated the minimum weekly wage rate for the Collector position in the 1987-1990 agreement and previous agreements. In the 1984 negotiations, it contends that the Union proposed a reclassification of the Collector position to key rate level, but ultimately withdrew that proposal. In light of this conduct, the Employer submits that the Union should not be entitled to succeed in this proceeding if it cannot point to a substantial change in duties and functions during the term of the collective agreement under which the grievance is filed.
II
6 The background facts to this proceeding are as follows. The collectors work in the Credit Department which is a part of the Business office of the Employer. The Credit Department is headed up by a Manager. Harry Astley has held that position since May, 1984. He in turn is assisted by an Assistant Credit Manager.
7 The Employer publishes The Vancouver Sun and The Province newspapers. Much of the revenue generated by those newspapers comes from the publication of advertising. There are three different categories of advertising: classified, retail, and general.
8 Classified advertising encompasses ads run in the classified sections of the two newspapers. Those ads come from regular and repetitive customers who will be invoiced periodically for the costs of their ads, and from transient customers who will run ads for a specific purpose, for example, an individual selling his car.
9 The second category of advertising is retail advertising. These ids come from retail stores such as Woodwards, Sears, The Bay, and London Drugs which advertise products, not necessarily their own, which can be purchased in their stores. The third category of advertising is general advertising. This type of advertising comes from companies which are advertising products which they themselves manufacture for sale. It would also include other advertising of a more general nature.
10 Some of the larger advertisers such as Chevron and Toyota will not deal directly with the Employer in respect of placing ads in The Vancouver Sun and The Province, but instead will have their ads placed by agencies. It is these agencies which contract with the Employer for the running of advertisements on behalf of their clients. Agencies may contract for advertising in all three categories.
11 The Employer employs both inside and outside sales representatives to sell advertising to its customers. They sell advertising in all three categories: classified, retail, and general. For customers who place ads in the two newspapers on a regular, ongoing basis, the salesmen will generally arrange for a written contract between the Employer and the customer. If a customer places a particularly high volume of advertising in the papers, he may be given a discount or “shortrate” for advertising placed over a certain volume. with respect to other customers who use the paper less frequently for advertising, the salesmen may see them only periodically to pick up advertising to bring into the paper.
12 In the 1970s, it was the salesmen who decided whether customers would be extended credit by the Employer in respect of the placing of advertising. They were the people who dealt with the customers. if they did not demand cash in advance from a customer before his ad ran, nobody else was in a position to do so. The salesman would place the ad, it would run in the newspaper, and the customer would subsequently be invoiced for the cost of the.ad.
13 If a customer did not pay that invoice in a timely fashion, it became the responsibility of the collectors to collect the account. Their first approach was to send overdue notices to the customer. If that failed, customers were contacted by telephone to secure payment. If that was not successful, accounts were referred to collection agencies. As a last resort, overdue accounts were written off.
14 The primary role of the Collector position at this time was to collect overdue ledger accounts. They did this principally through telephone contact with the customer. A job description for the position as of May 31 1973 read as follows:
Duties Approx. Time
Contacts customers by telephone regarding the payment of ledger accounts that are either overdue or considered a poor risk. Reports to the Credit Manager.
- Opens ledger accounts after checking out credit information supplied by credit agencies. 30 min. day
- Contacts customers by telephone in cases where telephone calls alone have previously proved effective as a means of collecting overdue accounts. Ledger N-Z monthly 4 hrs. day
- Investigates immediately any complaint or dispute, to avoid delay in payment of account.
- Forwards statements of accounts of customers to salesmen each week if credit of customer is to be watched. 15 min. week
- Assists the Credit Manager as required on collection of accounts and discusses with him the distribution of monthly statements N-Z ledger.
- Performs other related duties as required.
- Marks off daily cash lists for ledger. 30-45 min day
- Follows up on returned cheques 15-30 min day
- Responsible for stop and clearance for N-Z Ledger.15-30 Min. day
- Co-operates with sales departments.”
15 However, the collectors were not responsible at this time for deciding whether credit should be extended, or continued to be extended, to a customer in respect of his advertising. As stated above, this decision was in the hands of the salesmen. The collectors were to keep the salesmen informed of credit concerns about their customers as is reflected in paragraph 4 of the job description. However, their responsibility did not extend beyond that.
16 This limit on the collectors’ authority proved quite frustrating. On the one hand, a collector would be on the phone to a customer endeavouring to persuade him to pay his account. As a last resort, the collector might advise the customer that unless he paid his account, he would not be allowed to place any more ads in the newspapers. The collector might also advise the salesman who dealt with that customer of the position she had taken. Imagine her frustration when she found another invoice for that customer for an ad run, despite her statement to the customer to the contrary.
17 This type of occurrence caused considerable disharmony between the Sales Department and the Credit Department within the Employer’s operations. The Credit Department saw an inherent conflict in the salesman’s role in these circumstances. On the one hand, the salesman was being asked by the Credit Department not to accept any more ads from a customer until he paid his account while on the other hand, the salesman’s income was dependent upon the volume of advertising he sold. From the Credit Department’s view, this disharmony could be solved if there was some process whereby the collectors could see the customers whose ads were going into the newspapers before they ran and they had the authority to stop them from running if the customer’s account was overdue and he had not made arrangements. to pay for it. The problem was that there was no process that would permit the collectors to see the advertisement first.
18 This problem was solved with the introduction of two computer systems into the Employer’s operations. First came the CSI computer in January, 1986. This computer provided the Employer with an order entry system for classified advertising in both newspapers. The second computer was the VAX system which included all billing and advertising information regarding the Employer’s customers. General advertising was introduced into the VAX system in January, 1989 and retail advertising was added in August, 1989.
19 Through the VAX system, the collectors were given the ability to assign a credit code to each of the Employer’s customers accounts. There are approximately 50 different codes ranging from 1001 which indicates a satisfactory account with no problems, to 1301 which indicates that an overdue letter has been sent to the customer, to “57” advising that the account is in dispute, to 1971 which requires cash in advance before an ad from that customer can run, to 199” which is a “STOP” category.
20 As well, the salesmen had to enter all ads to be published in the newspapers into these two computers depending upon the category of advertising. Through an ‘ad tracking” system which was developed for the computers, the collectors were able to see these ads on their terminals in advance of their running in the papers. Thus, they were in the position of being able to contact customers who were in arrears to advise them that if they wanted that ad to run, they would have to bring their account into current status. Further, by assigning a particular credit code to a customer’s account in the system, for example 1991, the collectors could effectively prevent an ad being run in the paper for a seriously delinquent customer. No longer could the collectors be ignored by the salesmen.
21 The result of the introduction of the CSI and VAX computer systems along with the development of the “ad tracking’ system was that the collectors assumed effective control over the decision of which customers of the Employer would be extended credit. No longer was this a decision for the salesmen. The Employer also provided the collectors with more sophisticated credit research facilities to assist them in making their credit granting decisions.
22 These changes appear to have had a beneficial effect on the Employer’s accounts receivable and bad debt write-off statistics. In 1987, it took a customer on average 49 days to pay its account with the Employer. In 1988, that number had been reduced to 46, and by December, 1989, it was at 45. This latter figure ranked the Employer second of the eight publications in the Southam Newspaper Group’s metro markets. With respect to bad debt write-offs, the Employer wrote off .80% of its total advertising revenues in 1987. By 1988, that figure had been reduced to .74% By December, 1989, the figure had dropped substantially to .37% which ranked the Employer first in this respect among the same eight publications in the Southam Newspaper Group’s metro markets.
23 I now turn to the evidence I heard concerning the make-up of the Employer’s Credit Department. AS indicated above, it is headed by Harry Astley, the Manager. Reporting to him is Jennifer Barnett, the current Assistant Credit Manager and a former collector.
24 There are five collectors. Three of them are responsible for the bulk of the Employer’s customers who pay their accounts monthly. These monthly customers are divided between the three collectors alphabetically. Customers who constitute a higher credit risk are required to pay their accounts on a weekly basis. These accounts are handled by a fourth collector. Finally, there are the agency accounts which are handled by the fifth collector.
25 There are seven incumbents in the Credit Clerk II position which performs special functions related to ledger accounts. one clerk processes rate adjustments and billing errors through the computer systems. For example, a customer may have been billed at a certain rate, whereas under his contract he should have been receiving a shortrate. A second clerk is responsible for processing payments on account each morning and reconciling government accounts. A third clerk deals with the collection agencies used by the Employer including preparing a list every Friday of accounts to be referred to such agencies for collection. Astley reviews and approves the list. A fourth clerk is responsible for reconciling the accounts of two large retailers operating in the Lower Mainland. A fifth clerk assists the collector responsible for the agency accounts by reconciling those accounts. Then, there are two floater clerks who assist the other clerks as well as the collectors with their responsibilities.
26 The Credit Clerk II position is paid on a graduated scale with a minimum starting rate, a six month rate, a 12 month rate, and an 18 month rate. As of the date of the grievance, the 18 month rate for the position was $541.25 a week, only $1.89 a week less than the Collector position rate.
27 The collectors and credit clerks are involved with ledger accounts. There is another side of the Credit Department which is involved only with transient accounts, particularly in the area of classified advertising. Astley testified that transient advertising is the “bread and butter’ of the Employer. Although the amounts involved are small, the volume is large and it requires a lot of staff to administer this form of advertising. Although much of this advertising is paid for in cash, credit is also extended to some customers but only to a maximum of $300.
28 Working with transient advertising are Clerk I (Action Phone), Clerk I (Action Typist), and Credit Control Clerk positions. Above these positions in the hierarchy in this area are the Head Credit Control Clerk and the Action Billing Supervisor. The Head Credit Control Clerk is primarily involved in deciding who will be extended credit by the Employer in respect of the placing of transient ads. She makes decisions on whether ads will be allowed to run on credit or whether payment In advance will be required first. She discusses the Employer’s requirements with transient customers. She also oversees the work of the Credit Control Clerk position in this regard.
29 The Action Billing Supervisor position is responsible for supervising the work of the transient advertising side of the Credit Department. The duties she performs are primarily those of a supervisor, but she also handles disputes that. may arise between customers and her staff.
30 The Head Credit Control Clerk is paid on the same graduated scale as the Credit Clerk 11 position. AS of the date of the grievance in this matter, the 18-month rate for the position was $550.59 a week, $7.45 more than the rate for the Collector position.
31 The Action Billing Supervisor position, described as the Action Advertising Supervisor in the collective agreement, is paid it the key rate level.
32 This grievance is not the first time the incumbents in the Collector position have requested that their position be reclassified. In January, 1984, the collectors wrote to the Union immediately prior to the commencement of bargaining for a renewal of the collective agreement. In that letter, they stated in part that:
”Presently, our wages differ by only $1.46 per week from the Clerk II typists positions in our department with no wage step ups. Our job has far more responsibilities than that of a Clerk II typist. Our primary responsibility is the credit and collection of monthly advertising receivables in excess of ten million dollars.
We feel our job classification should be revised to key classification status comparable with the advertising sales representatives as our function for the company is of equal importance as that of the advertising sales departments.”
33 During the 1984 negotiations, the Union did propose the reclassification of the Collector position to the key rate level consistent with salesmen. It also sought during those negotiations, the implementation of a job evaluation program for all positions covered by the collective agreement.
34 Those negotiations culminated in a 10 week strike. In the ensuing settlement, there was no specific provision for an upgrading of the rate of pay of the Collector position. However, Roy Tubbs, the Union’s Administrative officer at the time, testified that the Union felt it had secured a commitment from the Employer that the various jobs covered by the collective agreement would be evaluated relative to one another during the term of the agreement. He said that no grievance was filed by the collectors after the 1984 negotiations because it was felt that the job evaluation program would review their job and pay rate along with all the others.
35 The Employer did not agree with the Union’s view about the commitment given during the 1984 negotiations. In the Employer’s view, the commitment was limited to a review of the job descriptions for the various positions covered by the agreement. There was not a further commitment to engage in a joint evaluation of the rates for those positions.
36 Following the settlement of the 1984 strike, the Employer prepared a draft of the new 1984-87 collective agreement and sent it to the Union for signature, That draft contained the following Letter of Agreement:
”A committee will be formed to develop a job description program. The committee will be comprised of the Guild President and four (4) members with representation from the Company.”
37 The Union disagreed with this wording because it did not expressly contain a reference to the subsequent evaluation of positions. For this reason, along with others, the union refused to sign the draft. In fact, a 1984-87 collective agreement was never signed by the parties.
38 The union raised the matter of a job evaluation program again in the negotiations for a renewal of the 1984-87 collective agreement. It also put forward a number of proposals for reclassification of various Positions. These latter proposals did not include the Collector position.
39 In this round, the Employer agreed with the concept of and need for an update to the existing job evaluation program within the Employer’s operation. it said it would undertake that review using the Hay System of Job Evaluation. It would keep the Union fully informed, but it expressed the view that:
”… full and equal Union representation in the process with an effective veto via binding arbitration on any job description, evaluation or procedural matter is not conducive to an immediate improvement in Company-Union relations or control of associated costs. As Pacific Press and others involved gain experience in the process of job evaluation, mutual agreement may well supplant the offered process of consultation.”
40 At the end of those negotiations, it was ultimately agreed that the Employer would conduct its review of the positions covered by the agreement, and the Union would conduct its own parallel review. Tubbs testified that the various proposals for reclassification of positions were rolled into the job evaluation process.
41 Tubbs was also asked if he at any time ever told the Employer that the collectors’ claim for key rate status was dead. His answer to that question was no.
42 In May, 1988, Astley approached the collectors about taking over responsibility for collecting the higher risk weekly accounts. At the time, this responsibility was being handled by the Assistant Credit Manager. Astley, however, wanted to free up more of her time for administrative and supervisory duties: The collectors agreed to assume this responsibility and AStley said be would endeavour to obtain additional remuneration for them.
43 Astley raised the issue with G.D. Hutchison, the Director of Finance and Administrative Services for the Employer. Hutchison told Astley that the whole Credit Department had contributed to the improvement in its statistics, and if certain further goals were met, the whole department would be rewarded. Although this was not the immediate increase in pay the collectors were seeking, they continued with collecting the weekly accounts.
44 The statistics for the Department continued to improve through 1988 and early 1989 as I have indicated above. In the early months of 1989, Astley approached Hutchison again. However, before anything could be done, Hutchison left the Employer. Hutchison’s successor as Director Of Finance, Mr. Charles Cooke, told Astley that he was not obligated by his predecessor’s commitment. The grievance that is before me in this proceeding was filed within a month of that statement.
45 Astley continued to pursue the matter with Cooke and so advised the collectors. He wrote a note to Cooke stating in part that:
”All Ledger Telephone Collectors have ‘discretionary power’ or authority to make decisions on the granting of credit to our customers – the theory being that along with authority should go responsibility. In the past, when the authority to extend credit rested with the sales department, there was no responsibility for the sales department to collect. This resulted in disillusioned Telephone Collectors and significant bad debt expense.
In my opinion, this was no way to run a credit department and in 1986, the authority for granting credit and setting up accounts was transferred to the credit department, where the authority should be, from the sales department. This was done in conjunction with implementation of our new C.S.I. and VAX billing system. A properly documented agreed upon credit policy also resulted from these changes.”
46 He wrote a similar note to himself for a meeting with the collectors after his meeting with Cooke. In that note, the following appears:
”During the past five years there has been a dramatic change in duties and responsibilities not only for collectors but for all clerical employees in the credit dept. and I would have to consider this fact and not only your request in isolation.
As regard to remuneration at key rate for collectors, I recommended a comparison of our jobs, duties and responsibilities compared to other key positions throughout the building to determine what inequities presently exist. If it can be proven they do exist, action be taken in my department.”
1 These comments were made to the collectors at their meeting with Astley.
2 Subsequently, in September, 1989, job questionnaires were sent to employees in the Credit Department. In a covering memorandum, Astley stated that:
”The last five years have seen many technological changes in the Credit Department. in addition to greater efficiency resulting in substantial reduction in our bad debts, most of our duties, responsibilities and procedures have changed significantly.”
47 Both the Employer and the Union retained individuals to give expert evidence on two of the issues that arise in this proceeding: has there been a substantial change in the duties and functions of the Collector position, and if sot what should the rate of pay for the changed Collector position be. David Fairey was retained by the Union. The Employer engaged the firm of Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg and three members of that firm worked together on the project: William L. Kennedy, Joan Harrison, and Shayda Kassam. Kennedy testified at the hearing.
48 Both prepared written reports which were exchanged between the parties and were entered into.evidence.
49 In Fairey’s written report, he concluded that there was a substantial change in the duties and functions of the Collector position. In this regard, he commented that:
”The conclusion of significant change or expansion of duties, function and requirements in the previous section of this report was based on the descriptive information provided, interviews with incumbents, and on job content factor analysis.
In Pacific Press job evaluation documentation in my possession several common factors of job content have been used over several decades to evaluate or compare jobs. They are as follows:-
-Complexity and Judgement-
-Initiative or Supervision Received-
-Responsibility for Errors or Decisions-
-Supervision Exercised-
-Education Required-
-Experience Required-
-Special Skills or other Requirements.
The changes evident in these jobs involve at least five of those factors:
-Complexity and Judgement:
Complexity is said to relate to the variety, diversity, difficulty and novelty of work. Judgement is said to relate to the interpretation of problems and the application of principals (sic) in the development of solutions.
There is greater variety, diversity and difficulty in this work than previously, due to the expanded function to include higher risk, weekly account collections, agency collections, the granting of credit, the introduction of the VAX and CSI computer systems, the processing of interest charges, the processing of credit card payment, etc. Greater judgement is required in relation to these expanded functions and in addition in relation to outside credit checks, opening accounts, obtaining security on high risk accounts, closing accounts, the information notes to be stored on computer files, the changing of credit codes, the timing and dating of reports and letters ordered, the cancellation or rejection of advertising,the approval of interest charges written off or blocked, deciding on credit coding and short-rate reversals or write-offs, the initiation of third-party collection and the initiation of revenue adjustments to solve customer disputes.
-Education Required:
While the May 1973 job description does not describe the education requirements of the job at that time, based on my interviews with all incumbents who have job seniority ranging from two or three to ten years, it is apparent that the education or training with which the ten year incumbent was hired into the job would not be adequate for successful performance if hired today. Ten years ago incumbents were hired or promoted on the basis of completion of high school in a business course or equivalent. Today incumbents feel that post-secondary education is necessary for basic training equivalent to a community college course in accounting or credit, completion of a course of study with the Canadian Institute of Credit and Financial Management.
In addition, on-the-job training accumulating to several weeks is now required relative to the VAX computer, the CSI computer and the overall collections function. These training programs have been introduced gradually over the last ten years.
-Experience Required:
From interviews with long-service incumbents, the experience requirements for the job are now greater than they were ten years ago. Previously some experience in telephone customer service and basic accounting was the main requirement. Today a year or more experience in collections and computer terminal keyboard functions is a requirement, as is evident from the experience of recent promotions and the April 1987 vacancy notice.
-initiative:
The expanded function and increased duties previously described also impacts on this factor. The incumbents are expected to exercise greater initiative than was previously the case. In the May 1973 job description, the Advertising Collector ‘assisted the Credit Manager in the collection of accounts’. This function is no longer an assisting one as. described. more decisions must be made with a greater degree of discretion. For example, granting credit, releasing credit information, dealing with complaints, negotiating terms of overdue account payment and release of ads, rejection of ads, processing short rates, blocking interest charges and initiating third-party collection.
Initiative is emphasized in the April 1987 vacancy notice.
-Physical Demand:
These positions are now required to give their work greater visual attention and mental concentration which results in increased stress and fatigue. They are required to monitor a computer video display screen and interactively operate a computer terminal keyboard throughout the day, in addition to the processing and maintaining of paper records and files.
The VAX computer billing and advertising system now controls a large portion of the work coming to incumbents and the timing and the speed of action that they are required to take. The work therefore cannot be accomplished without more constant attention to visual details.
-Special Skills or Other Requirements:
The April 1987 vacancy notice lists the following special skills:-
-excellent communication skills, verbally and in writing,-
-good telephone manner,-
-able to motivate advertising customers to pay their bills in a timely manner in accordance with our terms.
In addition, in interviews with incumbents, it is evident that assertiveness, alertness, and negotiating skills are required in dealing with customers and sales personnel. In addition, computer keyboard skills are required. The communication skills aspects and the keyboarding skills have been elevated and expanded in recent years.” (at 20-22)
50 Having reached this conclusion, he then compared the Collector position to the Assistant Credit Manager and Sales Representative positions. in his report, he expresses the following opinions regarding these comparisons:
”In summary, the majority of duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Credit manager overlap with the duties and responsibilities of Ledger Telephone Collectors. The additional increased requirement for direction to a larger group of Clerk IIs and to act for the Credit Manager distinguishes the Assistant Manager from the Ledger Telephone Collector.
In summary and on balance, I find no significant difference between the Ledger Telephone Collector and the Sales Representative from this factor comparison analysis. I therefore conclude that the wage rate for the Ledger Telephone Collector should be at or much closer to the wage level known as ‘key rate’.”(at 24-26)
51 The Executive Summary section of the Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg report summarizes the opinion of the three members of that firm on the two issues. That Executive Summary reads as follows:
”While support systems and methods have changed, we are not able to substantiate significant change in job function for the Ledger Telephone Collector position from 1970 to date. Job worth analysis based on earlier documentation and extensive current data fails to substantiate a significant increment in value.
The current position is evaluated to be approximately at the-same level as the Head Credit Control Clerk and substantially below the evaluations of outside Salesperson and Action Billing Supervisor, as indicated by the following job evaluation ratings:
-Action Billing Supervisor 255
-Outside Salesperson 236
-Head Credit Control Clerk 190
-Ledger Telephone Collector 180
Two Ledger Telephone Collectors have specialized duties which we understand are separately compensated. The evaluation of both these positions with these specialized duties included, results in job evaluation ratings of 195 for the position that handles all National and Agency Accounts, and 190 for the position that has additional computer responsibilities. “ (at 1)
3 Later in the report, the three authors comment that:
”Based on the job description for the position Advertising collector, dated January 19, 1970, and current documentation and interviews, it was determined that no significant change in job worth has occurred in the Ledger Telephone Collector position. A letter provided to us by Mr. Harry Astley, dated January 10, 1984 attaches a job description in May 1973, in which the Ledger Telephone Collectors describe their duties, including additional duties reported to have been added since their job description was written in 1970. This expanded list of duties would not have significantly enhance (sic) the job worth of the position originally described in 1970. If these additional duties can be considered to have been performed in 1973, then there has been no significant change in job worth since that time.
In our discussions, opinions were expressed that not all of the duties described in the earlier Ledger Telephone Collector position descriptions were fully carried out in practice by the incumbents, or that under accepted operating practice the distribution of time spent between functions was different from what it is today. While these statements may support the contention that the position has changed in a way that would affect in job value, there appears to be no way to confirm this and the magnitude of its impact, if any, on job worth.(at 4)
4 They then expressed the following conclusion:
”We established that the relative worth of the Ledger Telephone Collector position is similar to the worth of the position of Head Credit Control Clerk, and considerably different from the two key key (sic) comparators that we evaluated – Outside Salesperson and Action Billing Supervisor. Based on the documentation provided, there has been no significant increase in the job evaluation score of Ledger Telephone Collector since 1970.”(at 5)
With respect to the comment in the report that *opinions were expressed that not all of the duties described in the earlier Ledger Telephone Collector position descriptions were fully carried out in practice by the incumbents”, Kennedy testified that he and the two other members of his group proceeded on the assumption that the collectors had a credit granting function in 1970 and 1973. The performance of this function was in his view contained in the job descriptions of those dates, and he therefore assumed it was considered in the evaluation of the position at that time. If it was not a part of the job at that time, he felt the evaluation then could have been lower as it would impact on the “Complexity-judgment” factor.
III
52 I now turn to address the issues that arise in this proceeding.
53 The first issue is whether the Employer has substantially changed the duties or functions of the Collector position within the meaning of Article XXI (2) of the collective agreement.
54 The parties have been to arbitration before under Article XXI (2) of the agreement. See Pacific Press Limited (Unreported Award dated May 30, 1980, John Kagel, Arbitrator). In that case, the arbitration board commented on the meaning of substantial change in the article as follows:
”The term ‘substantial change’ means a significantly material change. In Turbine Support Division, cited by the Guild, 1-73 ARB, [para.] 8194 (1973). even though the title of the job did not change, the job’s wage rate would be required to be renegotiated where there was ‘a radical alteration of duties, responsibilities, procedures and pressures although the ultimate objective to be accomplished remained the same.’ (emphasis supplied) In Hawker Siddeley Canada Limited, cited by the Pulisher, 14 LAC 104 (1963), where the collective agreement provided for a wage review of a job for which there was ‘substantial change in the work assignments of an existing classification due to change in design, material, method of manufacture or product’ the Board of Arbitration held, ‘it is accordingly fair to conclude that to be substantial change in responsibility … would have to be such as would go to the root of it and thereby alter its nature and substance.’
In making a determination as to whether a significantly material, radical or root alteration to a job has occurred, a factual examination must be made. The Arbitrator must assess ‘the whole bundle of tasks and duties performed by the employee with a view to determining whether there has been a substantial qualitative change in his job function.’ (Brown Canadian Labour Arbitration (1977), p. 196, cited by both Parti emphasis supplied; see also Nurses Association Jose rant Memorial Hospital, 24 LAC 104 ST examination must take into account the net impact of the changes, offsetting changes which make jobs more difficult with changes which make them easier to perform (Communication Workers of America, 65-1 ARB, [para.] 8089 (1965); Ed Friedrich Inc, 65-1 ARB, [para.] 9167 (1960).’ (at 5-7)
55 With respect to the phrase “the duties or functions of an existing job’ in Article XXI (2), Arbitrator Kagel stated that:
”In analyzing Article XXI (2), the assumption is that the Agreement’s wage rates were negotiated with respect to their known content of responsibilities of each classification, the experience necessary to fulfill them, and the possession of the skills and dexterity to carry out the job by the methods assigned by the Employer to do so. If these elements are substantially changed during the life of the Agreement, then there is a need to adjust wage rates to accurately reflect these changes. The effect of Article XXI (2) is to initially measure the overall impact of changes in these factors to determine whether a change in the agreed upon wage rate is required for the now changed job.’ (at 7-8)
56 In another award involving the Newspaper Guild, and collective agreement language similar to Article XXI (2), that being The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Unreported Award dated June 20, 1980, Bert L. Luskin, Arbitrator), the board commented that:
”Merely adding additional duties to a classification that would constitute “more of the same,’would not necessarily justify a reclassification of an existing position. A mere change or substitution of duties would not necessarily result in changes so significant in nature as to justify the movement of an existing classification to a higher labor grade. A change (or changes) in duties would not justify an upward increase in rate of pay unless those changes were significant in nature and resulted in requiring the incumbents to exercise skills and abilities (or responsibilities) above and beyond those required of the incumbents prior to the change. Under any type of rate structure there is a reasonable expectation that a rate of pay is based upon the duties being performed by an employee, taking into consideration all of the relevant factors that generally determine an appropriate rate of pay.(at 11)
57 Returning to the facts of this case, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that there has been a substantial change in the character of the Collector position from what it was in 1973, as reflected in the May 3, 1973 job description. At that time, the incumbents in the position were collectors as is reflected in the job summary section of the job description:
”Contacts customers by telephone regarding the payment of ledger accounts that are either overdue or considered a poor risk.”
5 The current position that was described in the evidence during the hearing entails not only collection work, but also credit granting. As Astley told Cooke in early 1989:
”All Ledger Telephone Collectors have ‘discretionary power’ or authority to make decisions on the granting of credit to our customers – the theory being that along with authority should go responsibility.”
58 In my view, the decision making involved in credit granting is at a qualitatively higher level than that involved in collection work. To a certain extent, there was little decision making entailed in the 1973 Collector position. Credit had been extended to a customer, and it was the responsibility of the collectors to endeavour through the art of persuasion and otherwise to have the customer pay the account. If that could not be achieved, the account was referred to others such as collection agencies to try. If that did not succeed, the Employer wrote off the account.
59 Now, the incumbents in the Collector position decide whether the Employer’s credit will be extended to a customer. If a collector decides that it will not, it may be that that customer’s advertisement will not run in the newspapers published by the Employer. If a collector, on the other hand, extends credit to a poor risk, and the customer does not later pay, the Employer will have suffered a financial loss. overall, the Employer’s ledger accounts run into the millions of dollars with some individual accounts being in the tens of thousands of dollars.
60 This decision making authority also now extends into the incumbents’ collection work.. If an account is seriously in arrears, the collectors can put a stop to all future advertising by that customer until satisfactory arrangements are made to pay the account.
61 I am satisfied that the complexity and judgment entailed in, the initiative required for, and the responsibility for errors of, the Collector position today is significantly, substantiallyr and materially higher than it was in 1973. In the words of Article XXI (2), the Employer, in my view, has substantially changed the duties or functions of the Collector position since 1973.
62 This conclusion is consistent with the view AStley expressed to the collectors in the meeting he had with them after they filed their grievance. He stated at the time that:
”During the past five years there has been a dramatic change in duties and responsibilities not only for collectors but for all … “ (emphasis added)
63 This conclusion is not consistent with the opinion of Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg. However, the reason for this inconsistency became apparent during the hearing. Kennedy and the other two members of his group proceeded on the assumption, which they understood to be the case at the time, that the collectors had credit granting authority in 1973 pursuant to paragraph 1 in the may 3, 1973 job description. The evidence of Astley and the collectors during the hearing established that -this premise was incorrect.
64 The Employer then argues that while there may have been a substantial change in the duties and functions of the Collector position over the period 1973 to 1989, there has not been such a change during the term of the current collective agreement, i.e., March 1, 1987 to November 30, 1990. It submits that the incumbents and the Union must show such a change during that time period in order for their grievance to succeed.
65 In support of this submission, the Employer relies upon the arbitration board’s decision in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, supra. That case involved grievances field under provision to Article XXI (2) during the parties 1975-78 collective agreement. The parties there agreed to stay the arbitration proceedings and discuss the issues during negotiations. They could not resolve them in that forum, with the result that after the execution of the new collective agreement, they agreed to resume the arbitration proceedings. Subsequently during the term of the new agreement, but before the actual commencement of the arbitration hearings, the jobs covered by the grievances were affected by the merger of some of the departments of the Globe-Democrat with that of the corresponding departments of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The union sought to rely on the changes brought about by those mergers to support its argument of ‘significant change”. The employer opposed their right to do so.
66 With respect to this issue, Arbitrator Luskin commented that:
”The Company contended that the arbitrator does not have the authority to consider any alleged changes that occurred after September 1, 1978. The Company contended that the agreed-upon retroactivity date coupled with the agreement to submit the ‘existing’ dispute to arbitration would serve to limit the consideration of alleged changes to those which had occurred between 1975 and September 1. 1978.
The arbitrator is of the opinion that he does not have the authority to take into consideration any changes in duties of employees in a specific classification that may have resulted from the merger of certain facilities of the Globe and the Dispatch. In the absence of a specific agreement that would permit the arbitrator to take any such factors into consideration, he must find that he can consider only those areas of significant changes that may have occurred in the period between 1975 and September 1, 1978. Although it is conceivable that this ruling could result in a multiplicity of proceedings, the arbitrator cannot assume jurisdiction for the purpose of resolving all pending or potential disputes between the parties. To do so would exceed the arbitrator’s authority. It would be contractually impermissible and would result in a disservice to the parties and to the arbitration process.” (at 7)
67 There are a couple of features about The St. Louis Post-Dispatch case that distinguish it from this case.
68 First of all, the wording of Article IV, Section 5 of their collective agreement is different from the wording of Article XXI (2) in one important respect in so far as this issue is concerned. That article commences as follows:
”Applicable minimums for new classifications which may be established during the life of this Agreement, or for jobs in which there have been significant changes of duties, shall be determined by negotiations between the Publisher and the Guild.”
6 The words “during the life of this Agreement’ do not appear in Article XXI (2), although I note they do appear in Article XXI (3) which does not apply in this case. Thus, it is arguable that the arbitrator in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch case was under an express collective agreement restriction which is not found in the provision which is applicable in this case.
69 Second, and most significantly in my view, the arbitrator in The St. Louis Post-dispatch was concerned with job changes that had taken place grievances had been filed. in this case, the issue is whether the arbitration board can look back, not forward, in time in assessing whether there has been substantial change. With respect to future changes, the job incumbents and the union still have a remedy; they can file new grievances. This possibility was recognized by Arbitrator Luskin. With respect to changes before the current agreement, the right to address them would be lost forever if the Employer’s submission is correct.
70 This consequence is particularly troubling given that jobs will often evolve and change over a period of time that extends beyond the term of a single collective agreement. This could particularly be the case where the agreement is only for a one or two year term. One element in the evolution of a job by itself may not involve a substantial change, but when considered along with others over a period of time, may. However, if the Employer’s submission is adopted, and because of the timing of the changes, the job incumbents may never be in a position to file a grievance claiming substantial change.
71 The Employer submits that the Union and the incumbents are not left without a remedy in these circumstances. They can raise the matter in collective bargaining. However, the evidence I heard concerning the 1984 and 1987 negotiations between these parties suggests the difficulty parties generally can have in addressing numerous reclassification requests at the bargaining table. In my view, that forum is not geared for dealing with the minute detail that can arise in each and every reclassification request. That is why separate processes are often developed away from the bargaining table to address these requests. In fact, that is what these parties appear to have done in both the 1984 and 1987 negotiations.
72 The Employer also submits that when the parties agree to a wage rate for a position or classification in collective bargaining, they do so on the basis of the duties and functions of that position or classification as they exist at the commencement date of the collective agreement. Thus, the base for measuring future changes to a job becomes the job’s duties and functions as of the first day of the current collective agreement. As of that date, the duties of the Collector position included the credit granting function.
73 In my view, the premise underlying this submission is not a reasonable one. It assumes that the negotiators are aware of the current duties and functions of all of the jobs covered by the collective agreement they are negotiating, including the changes made since the last time they negotiated. I do not believe that this assumption is a reasonable one.
74 It is my view that the more reasonable assumption is that negotiators proceed on the basis that the duties and functions of the various jobs covered by the wage schedule they are negotiating have not changed since the last time their relative ranking in that schedule was established. Consistent with this assumption, they generally bargain across-the-board increases for all the classifications in the wage schedule. changes to duties and functions of specific jobs will usually only come to their attention if the employer reflects them in amendments to the position’s job description, or if the negotiator for either party expressly raises the changes at the bargaining table.
75 If one proceeds on the basis of this latter assumption, the base for determining whether there has been a substantial change to a job’s duties and functions becomes the last job description written for the position, or in the absence of a job description, the time when the position’s current ranking in the wage schedule vis-a-vis other positions was established. In this case, the last job description for the Collector position was written on May 3, 1973. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that its relative ranking in the Business Office wage schedule has been altered since that time. Finally, while reclassification of the Collector position was raised during the 1984 negotiations, that was before the credit granting function was given to the collectors through the introduction of the CSI and VAX computer systems. Again, it is the performance of that function which involves the substantial change in the duties and functions of the Collector position.
76 I appreciate that these views may differ from those expressed by Arbitrator Kagel in Pacific Press Limited, supra, at 7-8, quoted above. I say “may’ because not clear to me what Kagel was referring to when he used the words “known content of responsibilities of each classification’, The use of the word “known” may not be consistent with the underlying assumption of the Employer’s argument. It also appears that Kagel may not have heard argument on the “assumption’ issue or whether ‘during the life of the Agreement” was a requirement under Article XXI (2). However, I have considered these possible differences, as well as counsels’ arguments on this point, and I am still of the view that the assumption I have expressed above is more consistent with what the parties’ conduct and expectations are in collective bargaining. It is my view that in the absence of express words to the contrary in the agreement, substantial changes to the duties and functions of a job do not have to occur during the term of the current collective agreement. Such express words are included in the applicable clause in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, supra. They are not included in Article XXI (2) in this case.
77 However, even if I were to accept the Employer’s submissions on this point, I would still conclude that the Union must succeed on the first issue. While the process of extending the credit granting function to the collectors began in 1986, significant elements of it were not implemented until 1989. These elements include the introduction of the VAX billing system for general advertising in January, 1989 and retail advertising in August# 1989. As well, there was the development of the ad tracking system. Thus, the bulk of the credit granting function was not implemented until after the 1987-90 collective agreement came into force. In my view, the incumbents in the Collector position and the Union were entitled to wait until that *discretionary power’ had been largely implemented before asserting their claim under Article XXI (2).
78 Having concluded that the Employer has substantially changed the duties and functions of the Collector position within the meaning of Article XXI (2) of the collective agreement, I now turn to address the issue that flows from this conclusion – what should the appropriate rate of pay be for the substantially changed position?
79 A number of arbitration awards were referred to in argument which discuss the principles that should be applied in dealing with this issue. One such award was Vancouver Police Board [19821 1 W.L.A.C. 146 (Hope) in which the board settle the appropriate wage rate to be paid to detectives in the City of Vancouver police force. The majority of that board commented that:
”The union places its major reliance on external comparisons made with other police forces and ‘ other police ranks. It relies to a lesser extent on internal alignments in the form of historical relationships between detectives and police officers holding the rank of sergeant, but its major argument relates to the external factors.
It can be said that when an interest dispute addresses itself to the determination of the pay rate for a single category of employee, the factor of internal alignment is the predominant factor. That is not to say that other factors should not be considered as a means of testing the rate dictated by a consideration of the internal relationship.
The task of an arbitrator in an interest dispute is to achieve a rate that is fair having regard to all relevant circumstances and criteria. In carrying out that exercise, it is of fundamental importance to identify the factors and criteria that All dictate fairness. It is equally important to understand that fairness is not an issue to be determined by an arbitrator in imitation of any equitable jurisdiction. Fairness in the context of an interest arbitration must be seen as a reflection of the marketplace. It has been said repeatedly by arbitrators that the goal of an interest dispute is to approximate the result that would have been achieved by the parties if the issue had been determined in free collective bargaining.
It is repeated that it is when wages and benefits are in dispute with respect to the entire bargaining unit that freely negotiated wages prevalent in the same industry are valuable criteria in the sense that they emanate from the marketplace itself. But the same inference of fairness does not arise with respect to an individual rate for the reason that the individual rate must be compatible with other rates negotiated internally, and maintained in balance with existing alignments.’ (at 148-150)
80 A second award was Health Labour Relations Association of British Columbia (Unreported Award dated March 51 1990) in which the undersigned as Classification Referee under the maintenance Agreement between Health Labour Relations Association and the Hospital Employees’ Union was asked to establish a new benchmark and pay rate under those parties’ benchmark classification system. In this regard, I commented that:
”When the Classification Referee is required to establish a rate of pay for a new or revised benchmark under Section 9(5)(d) of the Maintenance Agreement, he is, in my view, acting as an interest arbitrator in doing So. AS such, he is obliged to act objectively and replicate what the parties themselves would have done in all the circumstances of the case. See by way of analogy, Beacon Hill Lodges of Canada (1985), 19 L.A.C. (3d) 288 (Hope, TV.)
In these circumstances, where a new or revised benchmark has to be established as a result of a significant increase in the duties and responsibilities of a position, the increase in the rate of pay for that new or revised benchmark must be objectively related to the additional duties and responsibilities encompassed within it. The new rate of pay must fairly compensate those performing the work for undertaking those additional duties and responsibilities. implicit in all of this, in my view, is that the increase will be based upon the current pay scale and its internal equities weighed against the significance of the change in duties and responsibilities reflected in the new or revised benchmark.’ (at 8)
81 With respect to this issue, both parties adopted positions which were in essence consistent with the arbitral principles reflected in the above two awards. The union maintains that the wage rate for the substantially changed Collector position should be set at the key rate level. It submits that that result follows when the duties and functions of that position are compared to other internal jobs such as the Outside Sales Representative and Assistant Credit manager positions. On the other hand, AStley and the Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg group compared its duties to those of the Head Credit Control Clerk position, and argued that no change in the relative ranking of the Collector position was justified.
82 Fixing a rate of pay for a substantially changed position in these circumstances is facilitated both for the parties, in my view, and for the arbitrator where the existing internal alignment of positions is based upon some objective system for measuring and evaluating jobs. Fixing the rate then becomes a case of applying the recognized factors under that system to the changed duties and functions of the position.
83 It appears that in the 1970s the Employer did have a job evaluation system under which positions in the Union’s bargaining unit were rated. Fairy endeavored to use what he understood to be this system based on documents given to the Union by the Employer in 1981 to prepare his report for this proceeding. However, it was not shown in evidence if, and to what extent, ratings under that system were reflected in the wage rates contained in the collective agreement.
84 It also appears that the Employer is no longer using that system. Instead, it has moved to the Hay system of Job Evaluation. Finally, the Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg group used the firm’s Aiken Job Evaluation Plan in preparing its report.
85 The result is that I have been provided with several evaluations of the Collector position as it was in the 1970s and as it exists today based upon different evaluation systems. Further, it has not been shown to what extent those systems are similar or different. Therefore, while these evaluations provide rationales for the opinions they were intended to support, they do not provide me with a set of agreed-upon factors and points to measure and evaluate the Collector position against other comparable positions in the Employer’s operations. In my view, this leaves me in the position of comparing the changed duties and functions of the Collector position with the duties and functions of other related positions in the Employer’s Credit Department and determining where the Collector position would most fairly rank in that internal hierarchy given those changed duties and functions.
86 One of the comparisons the Union seeks to make is to the position of Outside Sales Representative in the Employer’s General Advertising Department. Its submission in this regard asks me to compare credit granting work to that of a salesman. In my view, it is virtually impossible for an arbitrator to compare or value such dissimilar work in the absence of some objective job evaluation system which in turn is reflected in the existing wage schedule. Those circumstances are not present here, and in that light, I am of the view that the comparisons must be limited to positions in the Employer’s Credit Department which involve the performance of work similar to that undertaken by the collectors. For these reasons, I reject this comparison to the Outside Sales Representative position.
87 The remaining comparisons referred to by the parties are all to positions within the Employer’s Credit Department. One is the Assistant Credit Manager position. The job description for that position dated May 14, 1973 read as follows:
” Duties Approx. Time
A
1 .To assist the-Credit Manager in
maintaining Company Policy, in
granting of credit and the
collection of accounts.
2 . Phones and collects overdue
accounts from the Trial Balance
Sheets. Responsible for 580
weekly ledger accounts and
1,020 monthly ledger accounts
A-C. 5 hr. day
Mark off cash lists weekly
and monthly ledger. 1/2 hr. day
3 .TO pass on Renewal contracts.
Contacting new accounts
regarding credit limits and
setting terms of payment.
Follow up by phone when
arrangements not kept. 1/2 hr. day
4 .To work with the Advertising
managers and Salesmen in the
control of credit limits,
stop lists and stop & go
forms. 1 hr. day
5 .Contacting customers and
Advertising Managers
regarding accounts, where
complaints or adjustments are
slowing payment. Assists when
necessary with irate customers
to settle disputes. 1/2 hr. day
6 . To assist in the preparation
of the weekly and monthly
accounts receivable Trial
Balance lists for collections
by processing rebates and
journals, charges and credits.
Authorized to sign journals,
cheque vouchers etc. 1 hr. week
7 .Follows up returned cheques. 15 min. day
8 .To direct the recording and
filing of Credit Information. 1 hr. week
B
1 .To be trained on the various jobs in the Credit Department, special billing, legals, government accounts, cash flow, post-dated cheques, filing etc.
2 . To assist the Credit Manager and discuss with the office Manager review of systems, Data billing and procedures for more effective results.
3 . Co-operate and co-ordinate work with other members of the Credit section.
4 . To act for the credit manager in his absence and to perform any other duties as may be required.*
7 The other comparisons made are to the Action Billing Supervisor position and the Head Credit Control Clerk position.
88 The Assistant Credit manager position in 1973 was responsible for collecting overdue ledger accounts and was involved in the granting of credit, [see paragraph A(l)]. These are both duties now performed by the Collector position. However, there were other duties of that position at that time that are not performed now by the collectors. Those duties were administrative in nature [see paragraphs AM and B(2)], supervisory (in part reflected by paragraph B(3)], and finally, a responsibility to act for the Credit Manager in his absence.
89 In my view, these supervisory, administrative, and substitution duties require a higher degree of skill and responsibility than those entailed in credit granting. Therefore, while the Collector position assumed some of the duties of the Assistant Credit Manager, it did not assume them all. In view of the skill and responsibility entailed in those it did not assume, I am satisfied that it would not be appropriate for the Collector position to be placed at the same level as the Assistant Credit manager position in the wage schedule.
90 This same reasoning applies to the comparison between the Collector position and the Action Billing Supervisor position. That position is also primarily a supervisory and administrative position.
91 Therefore, I am of the view that setting the wage rate for the Collector position at key rate level is not justified.
92 At the time of the grievance in this proceeding, the wage rate for the Collector position was only $1.89 a week above the 18-month rate for the Credit Clerk II position. As discussed above, the incumbents in this position perform a range of clerical and accounting functions in respect of the ledger accounts. However they do not have any authority in respect of credit granting.
93 In my view, the current wage differential between the Collector position and the Credit Clerk II position does not reflect the very distinct difference in the level of skill and responsibility required for the two positions.
94 The Head Credit Control Clerk position is paid on the same graduated scale as the Credit Clerk II position is. As of the date of the grievance, the 18-month rate for this position was $550.59 a week, $7.45 a week more than the rate for the Collector position. Both positions are principally involved in granting credit and collecting overdue accounts. However, there are, in my view, two distinct differences between them. The Head Credit Control Clerk position deals with transient advertising having a maximum credit limit of $300, while the Collector position deals with ledger accounts having credit limits in the tens of thousands of dollars. Secondly, the customers who deal with the Head Credit Control Clerk position are transient, while those the Collector position deals with are regular and repetitive.
95 In my view, the nature of the customer dealt with and the considerably higher dollar value of the accounts casts a higher responsibility on the Collector position over that of the Head Credit Control Clerk position. This higher responsibility in turn calls for the exercise of a greater level of skill. This higher level of skill and responsibility justifies the Collector position being placed above the Head Credit Control Clerk position in the wage schedule.
96 Based on these comparisons, I am satisfied that the Collector position must be ranked above the Credit Clerk II position and below the Assistant Credit Manager position. These positions are the ones involved with ledger accounts. I am also of the view that the difference in skill and responsibility between the clerical and accounting duties of the Credit Clerk II position and the credit granting and collection duties of the Collector position is about equal to that between those duties of the Collector position and the administrative supervisory and substitutional duties of the Assistant Credit Manager position. Therefore, consistent with the “existing alignments’ and the ‘internal equities’ of the current wage schedule, I have determined that the wage rate for the substantially changed Collector position should be established at a rate half-way between the rate for the Credit Clerk II position and the rate for the Assistant Credit Manager position.
97 Unlike most other positions in the Employer’s Business Office Department, the Collector position is not paid on a graduated scale with wage rates increasing with experience. This may have been understandable when the duties of the position were essentially limited to collecting ledger accounts. However, with the position now involved in credit granting as well and with the range of duties entailed in that responsibility, it seems to me that a graduated scale similar to that of the Credit Clerk II and the Head Credit Control Clerk positions would also be appropriate for the Collector position. I make this comment, but do not expressly award such a scale. on the evidence, all of the collectors as of the date of the grievance would be at the top of the scale and entitled to the top rate in any event.
98 Given my conclusions on this second issue, I must now turn to address the third and last issue, That issue is to what date are the increases in the wage rate for the Collector position retroactive?
99 In my view, the answer to this question is provided in clear terms by Arbitrator Kagel in his earlier award between these parties. See Pacific Press Limited, supra. There, he stated that:
”The Publisher’s apparent contention that there is no retroactivity at all to Article XXI(2) until new wage rates are agreed to or awarded (see Tr. 1972) is not a fair reading of Article XXI(2). Rather, the date on which a claim is raised under it would be the appropriate date for such rates to go into effect, not the date when the processes of Article XXI(2) are concluded. The Publisher is then on notice of the claim.
In this case the formal invocation of the negotiation process either under Article XXI(2) or Guild Ex. 89 was on July 7, 1978 (Guild EX. B). While there were exploratory discussions in November 1977 under Guild Ex. 89, the Guild specifically did not seek to invoke that provision then (See Guild Ex. A). Notwithstanding that the Employer expected some type of Guild assertion under Article XXI(2) soon after the 1977 negotiations concluded (Tr. 2006, 2008, 2010), it delayed making its claim until July 7. 1978. That date is the date to which any wage increase must relate back to, both contractually and equitably.” (at 45-46)
100 Therefore, the increase in the wage rate for the Collector position contained in this Award is retroactive to April 19, 1989, the date the collectors filed their grievance in this matter.
101 The Union argued that any award be retroactive to June, 1988, the month after Astley told the collectors he would pursue an increase for them as a result of their taking over the high-risk weekly ledger accounts from the Assistant Credit Manager. I can not accept this argument. First of all, it is inconsistent with the award of Arbitrator Kagel, with which I agree. Secondly, by that time, a significant portion of the credit granting function had still not been transferred to the collector position. That did not occur until January, 1989 with the introduction of the VAX billing system with respect to general advertising. Thus, as of June, 1988, there had not actually been a substantial change in the duties and functions of the Collector position. The process bad begun, but had not been substantially completed.
102 As of the date of the grievance, the top rate for the Credit Clerk 11 position was $541.25 a week. The key rate for the Assistant Credit Manager position at that time was $911.53. In accordance with my determination above, the rate for the Collector position as of the date of the grievance should be $726.39 a week, half-way between those two rates.
103 Subsequent increases including contractual wage increases and cost of living adjustments are provided for under the 1987-1990 collective agreement. Those increases, subsequent to the date of the grievance, are to be applied to the new rate for the Collector position set by this Award.
104 In conclusion, the grievance is allowed in accordance with the foregoing. It is so awarded.
105 I retain jurisdiction to deal with any difficulties that might arise in connection with the implementation of this Award.
8 Dated this of may, 1991.
9 SIGNED BY JOHN KINZIE ARBITRATOR