Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Anderson 05-10-04
INTHEMATTEROFAWORKLOADARBITRATION BETWEEN: SHERIDANCOLLEGE -TheEmployer -and ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEESUNION, LOCAL244 -TileUnion ANDINTHEMATTERoftheworkloadcomplaintofCherylAnderson WorkloadResolutionArbitrator:HowardSnow Appearances: OnbehalfoftheEmployer: BrendaBowlby NeilRobb BrendaStagg LeonaSeib AnuNair OnbehalfoftheUnion: BillCrichton -Counsel -AssociateDeanandEmployerCo-Chair, CollegeWorkloadMonitoringGroup -AssociateDean -AdministrativeAssistant -HumanResourcesAssistant Che71Anderson -Vice-President/TreasurerandUnionCo-Chair, CollegeWorkloadMonitoringGroup -Complainant HearingheldSeptember9,2005,inBrampton,Ontario. AWARD I.INTRODUCTION CherylAnderson'scomplaintaboutherMayworkloadassigmnentforthe2005fal!termwas referredtoarbitration.TheEmployerobjectedtomyconsideringMsAnderson'sconcerns regardingthatworkloadassignmentasithadbeenrevisedbytheEmployer.TheEmployer arguedthatonlythemostrecentworkloadassigmnentshouldbearbitrated. II.THEBACKGROUND Iheardnoevidence.ThepartiesmadesublnissionsontheEmployer'sobjectiontomy jurisdictionand,insodoing,outlinedthefacts.Thereappealedtobenofactualdisputeon anymatterimportanttotheresolutionofthisissue. CherylAndersonisateacheratSheridanCollege.Shereceivedastandardworkloadform datedMay20,2005,fi'omBrendaStagg,hersupervisor.TheformoutlinedMsAnderson's proposedworkloadforthe2005fallterm.MsAndersonnotedherconcernsaboutthe workloadonthefore1whichshereturnedtoMsStagg. May30MsStaggrevisedMsAnderson'sproposedworkloadandissuedanotherassigmnent. MsAndersonraisedconcernsaboutthissecondassigmnentandthatassigmnentwasreferred totheWorkloadMonitoringGroupandthentomeasWorkloadResolutionArbitrator. AthirdworkloadassignmentwasissuedJune27.Inreplytothis,MsAndersonnotedher disagreementandwrote,inpart,"CandiscussatarbitrationSeptember9/05." AfourthworkloadassignmentwasissuedAugust29.InthatassigmnentMsStagghad -2 changedonecourseandalteredotherassigneddutiesknownas%omplementaryfunctions." MsAndersononceagainobjectedtotheassignmentandwrote,inpart,"forarbitration reviewevaluationfactors." TheEmployerassertedthatchangesincircumstances,inparticularchangesintheexpected enrollment,requiredthatchangesbemadetoMsAnderson'sworkload.Inaddition,the EmployerassertedthatitmadeotherchangesinanefforttoaccommodateMsAnderson's concerns. InotethattheteachingtermbeganbeforethearbitrationandMsAndersonwasperforming theworkspecifiedinthefourthworkloadassigmnent. III.PROVISIONSOFTHECOLLECTIVEAGREEMENT Thefollowingisthekeyprovisionoftheparties'2003-2005collectiveagreement: Article11 WORKLOAD 11.02A1(b)TheCollegemay,whereachangeincircumstancesrequiresit,amendassignments providedtoateacheraftertheoriginalassignment,subjecttotheteacher'sfighttoreferanymatter totheCollegeWorkloadMonitoringGroup(WMG)referredtoin11.02B1andifnecessary,the WorkloadResolutionArbitrator(WRA)refen'edtoin11.02E1andappointedunder11.02F1. IV.POSITIONOFTHEEMPLOYER TheEmployerobjectedtonayjurisdictionregardingthesecondworkloadassigmnentand arguedthatonlythemostrecent,i.e.thefourth,assigmnentshouldbearbitrated.However, thatassignmenthadnotbeenrefen'edtomeand1waswithoutjurisdictiontoconsiderany ofMsAnderson'sconcernsregardingthefourthassigmnent. -3 TheEmployerprovidedthreereasonsforitsposition. FirsttheEmployersubmittedthat,asthesecondworkloadassignmentwasnolongeran intendedassignment,anyproblemsthatmayhaveexistedaboutitweremoot.Inotethat "moot"isageneralconceptunderwhichadjudicatorsdeclinetoconsideradisputeifthe resolutionofitwillservenopracticalpurpose. Secondly,theEmployersaidthatitwouldbeprejudicedifIaddressedthesecondassigmnent asithadmadechangesinittoaccommodateMsAnderson'sconcernsandanyawardImade regardingthesecondassigmnentwouldbebindingonthepartiesandflowthroughtothe fourthassignment.InfairnesstotheEmployer,anyissuesshouldbeaddressedinthecontext oftheworkloadwhichtheEmployerhadmostrecentlyassignedtoMsAnderson. Thirdly,theEmployernotedthatthecollectiveagreement(Article11.02A1(b))allowedthe Employertoreviseworkloadassigmnentsand,inturn,allowedtheemployeetoreferany concernsaboutthatrevisedassigmnenttotheWorkloadMonitoringGroupandtoarbitration. TheEmployersubmittedthattheintentofthepartieswasthatonlythemostrecentworkload proposalbearbitrated. V.POSITIONOFTHEUNION TheUnionsaidthatMsAndersonhadreferredthesecondproposedworkloadtomeandI hadjurisdictiontoheat"MsAnderson'scomplaintaboutthatassignment. TheUnionsubmittedthatthesameissuesaroseinboththesecondandfourthassigmnents. MsAnderson'sconcernwasthetimeallowedfortheevaluationofstudentsand,although thenumberofsectionsdiffered,theidenticalcoursesappearedinbothassigmnents.The -4 UnionsubmittedthatifIfoundthetimeallowedforevaluationinthesecondassigmnentwas wrongandcorrectedit,myrulingwouldbe"automaticallypluggedinto"thefourth assigmnent. VI.CONCLUSIONS TheEmployerhasraisedanissueofgeneralprinciple:shouldacomplaintarisingundera workloadassignmentbearbitratedinsituationsinwhichtheEmployersubsequentlyrevised thatassigmnent? Inmyexperience,itisveryunusualtohavesomanyrevisionsinanassignment.The collectiveagreementdoes,however,allowtheEmployertoamendaworkloadassignment "whereachangeincircumstancesrequiresit"(Article11.02A1(b),supra).WhileIhave heardargumentsinotherCollegescoveredbythiscollectiveagreementthatanemployer's changeinworkloadassigmnentwasnot"required"underthisprovision,inthisinstancethe UnionraisednoconcernabouttheproprietyofanyofthechangesinMsAnderson's assigmnent.Therewasmentionthatachangeinem'olhnentnecessitatedthesechanges.I thereforedealwiththeEmployer'sobjectiononthebasisthatthechangeswereperlnitted undertheagreement. Afterallowingforchangesinworkloadassigmnent,thiscollectiveagreementexpressly providesthatconcernsaboutthatrevisedassigmnentmayproceedtoarbitration.Theissue oftheinterpretationoftheagreementbeforemeisthusarelativelynarrowone-inasituation wheretheEmployerhasrevisedaworkloadassignment,andgiventhatconcernsaboutthat revisedassignmentcanbereferredtoarbitration,didthepartiesintendthatconcernsabout theearlierassigmnentcouldalsoproceedtoarbitration? -5 Thereisnothingintheagreementwhichdirectlyaddressesthisnarrowissue.Theissuehas toberesolvedonthebasisofthestructureoftheagreementasawholeandanassessmentof whatthepartiesintendedinthisunusualsituation. IftheUnionpositioniscorrect,therecouldpotentiallyhavebeenfourarbitrationsaboutMs Anderson'sworkloadforthefall2005term.Ihavetroublethinkingthatthepartiesintended thatoutcome.Ihavetroublethinkingthatthepartiesintendedthattheremightbetwoor moreseparatearbitrationsaboutateacher'sworkloadforoneterm.Inparticular,Idonot thinkthepartieswouldhaveintendedthattherebeanarbitrationaboutanearlierworkload inasituationsuchasthiswherethatearlierassigmnentwaschangedinaccordancewiththe collectiveagreementinadvanceofthearbitration.Ibelieveitwasthepalsies'intentionthat therealworkloadbetheworkloadconsideredinarbitration. Whatwouldbethelabourrelationsvalueinthepartiesintendingthataworkloadwhichhas beenreplacedwouldbeaddressedinarbitration?Itmakeslittlelabourrelationssenseto havenmltipleand,potentiallyconflicting,arbitrationdecisionsaboutateacher'sdiffering workloadassigmnentforthesanreperiodoftinae.Itmakeslittlelabourrelationssenseto arbitrateadisputeaboutaproposedworkloadthathasbeenreplaced. Instead,itseemsthatthepartiesintendedthattherevisedassignmentwouldbethe assigmnentthatproceedstoarbitration,whichiswhythepartiesspecificallymentionedthat concernsabouttherevisedassiglnnentcouldbearbitrated.Whenaproposedworkloadis changedbytheEmployerinaccordancewithitsrightsundertheagreement,Iconcludethat therevisedassigmnentistheassigmnentwhichcanbereferredtoarbitration. Inviewofmyconclusionabove,itisnotnecessarytodealwiththeissueraisedbythe EmployerastowhetherthematterwasmootnorwiththeEmployer'sargumentconcerning -6 thepossibilityofprejudice. Inotethattherewasanissueraisedwithrespecttothefourthworkloadassigmnentand whetherthatassigmnenthadbeenacceptedbyMsAnderson.TheEmployerassertedthatMs Anderson'sconcernsabutthatfourthassigmnenthadbeenraised"outoftime"withthe effectthatshewasdeemedtohaveacceptedit.However,itwasmadeclearthattheparties didnotwishnretoconsiderthatissueasonlythesecondassigmnentwasreferredtome.My termastheseparties'WorkloadResolutionArbitratorendedJune30,2005,and,iftheparties continuetodisputethisissue,theyareabletotaketheirdifferencesbeforethearbitrator appointedeffectiveJuly1,2005. Insummal3,,becausethecollectiveagreementindicatesanintentionthatonlytheactual workloadassigmnent,i.e.inthiscasethefourth,proceedtoarbitration,IconcludethatIhave nojurisdictiontoconsiderMsAnderson'scomplaintregardingthesecondassigmnent. DatedinLondon,Ontario,this4thdayofOctober,2005. HowardSnow,dResolutionArbitrator