The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUnion 13-08-13INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN: HUMBERCOLLEGE (THECOLLEGE) AND: ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEESUNION (THEUNION) ANDINTHEMATTEROFAUNIONPOLICYGRIEVANCE-#2011-0562-0002 BOARDOFARBITRATION: HOWARDD.BROWN,CHAIR PAMELAMUNT-MADILL,UNIONNOMINEE JACQUELINECAMPBELL,COLLEGENOMINEE APPEARANCESFORTHECOLLEGE; WilliamJ.Hayter,Counselandothers APPEARANCESFORTHEUNION: LesleyGilchrist,Counsel AudreyTaves,ChiefSteward AHEARINGINTHISMAfqERWASHELDATETOBICOKEONSEPTEMBER19,2012. INTERIMAWARD 2 ThegrievancefiledbytheUnionundertheprovisionsofthecollectiveagreementfor AcademicEmployeesbetweenthepartieseffectiveSeptemberi,2009toAugust31,2012in whichitisclaimedthatthe"Collegehasallowedprobationalfacultytoenterintoandremainin overtimesituations.ThisisinviolationoftheAcademlcCollectiveAgreementinparticular,but notexclusivelyArticleii.01J4,andalsoii.01J1andii.01E4".TheUnionrequestsasa remedythereassessmentofallprobationaryfacultyfoundtobeinanovertimepositionand theirSWFrevisedtoeliminatetheovertime...".ItwasallegedbytheUnionthattheCollege allowedprobationaryfacultytoexceedthemaximumnumberofteachinghoursasspecifiedIn Articleii.01J4.Thegrievancewasdeniedandwasreferredtoarbitrationandpresentedat thehearingassetoutabove. TheCollegeraisedapreliminaryobjectiontothegrievanceandtheBoard'sjurisdiction underArticle32ofthecollectiveagreementtodealwiththeissueofthegrievancewhichinits positionshouldbedealtwithasaworkloadarbitrationunderArticle11.02A6(a)whichisas follows: "Intheeventofanydifferencearisingfromtheinterpretation, application,administrationorallegedcontraventionof11.01, 11.02,or11.09,ateachershalldiscusssuchdifferenceasa complaintwiththeteacher'simmediatesupervisor. Failingsettlementofsuchacomplaint,ateachermayreferthe complaint,inwriting,totheWMGwithinsevendaysofreceiptof theimmediatesupervisor'sreply.Thecomplaintshallthenfollow theproceduresoutlinedin11.02Bthrough11.02F." 1t.02A6(b)GrievancesarisingwithrespecttoArticle11, Workload,otherthan11.01,11.02,and11.09shallbehandledin accordancewiththegrievanceproceduresetoutinArticle32, GrievanceProcedures." TheCollegefurtherreferredtoArticle11.02C1whereitissubmittedthattheissue raisedinthegrievanceshouldhavebeenaworkloadarbitrationunderthatprovisionofthe collectiveagreementasanindividualgrievanceandnotthatoftheUniontorequestindividual adjustmentsanddoesnothavetherighttoreferacomplainttotheworkloadadjustments underArticle11.02andcannotbesubmittedasapolicygrievancewhichinvolvesacomplaint aboutaworkload.Therefore,itwassubmittedthattheUnioncannotbefoundtogrievethe issuesetoutinitsgrievanceinaccordancewiththetermofthecollectiveagreement. ReferencewasmadespecificallytothedecisionoftheDivisionalCourtinReGeorgeBrown College(2002)O.J.No.3652. ReferencewasmadetoArticle32,10ofthecollectiveagreementwhichheldthatthe UnionorUnionLocalshallhavetherighttofileagrievancebasedonadifferencedirectlywith theCollegearisingoutoftheagreementconcerningtheinterpretation,application, administrationorallegedcontraventionoftheagreement.Suchgrievanceshallnotincludeany matteruponwhichanemployeewouldbepersonallyentitledtogrieveandtheregular grievanceprocedureforpersonalorgroupgrievanceshallnotbebypassedexceptwherethe Unionestablishesthattheemployeehasnotgrievedanunreasonablestandardthatispatently inviolationofthisagreementandthatadverselyaffectstherightsofemployees..." 4 TheCourtnotedthatitisnotthecasewheretheUnionisdeniedaccesstoarbitration butupheldtheemployer'sobjectionanddismissedtheUniongrievanceinthecircumstancesof thatcasewhichitisarguedappliesdirectlytothecircumstancesofthepresentmatterbetween theseparties.FurtherreferenceswasmadetoReHumberCollegeandOPSEU,adecisionof ArbitratorWhiteheaddatedJune7,2003,inwhichthearbitratordealtwithanissuethatthe complaintreferreddirectlybytheUniononitsbehalfthattheCollegehadnotsupplied timetablesofallprofessorsintheCollegetotheWMG.Thepreliminaryobjectionwasraisedat thehearingbytheCollegewhichwasappliedbythearbitratorindismissingthegrievanceand statedinpartthatinhisview,thegrievancepursuedbytheUniondidnotmeetthetestfora referralforaWRAunderArticle32withreferenceaswelltothedecisionofArbitratorDevlinin ReSenecaCollegedatedJune5,1998. ReferencewasalsomadetoanawardinSt.LawrenceCollegeinwhichtheBoard concludedthatitdidnothavejurisdictiontodealwiththeUnion'sgrievanceofanallegation thattheCollegedidnotprovideoneortwostepsonthesalarygridforpartialloadco ordinatorsassetoutintheUnion'sgrievance. ItwasfurthersubmittedfortheCollegethattheUniongrievesforaspecificremedyfor onepersoninthebargainingunitanditisnotappropriatefortheCollegepursuanttoArticle 32.09toproceedinthatrespectanddoesnothavejurisdictiontodealwiththatissuewherean employeecouldproceedwithanindividualgrievancebutdidnotandcannotberaised indirectlybytheUnionundertheworkloadprovisions. 5 ItwasagreedthattheUnionwasrepresentinginthisissueoneemployeewhohadbeen retainedbeyondthelimitasrequiredintheworkloadsectionofArticle11whichat11.01A: "Eachteachershallhaveaworkloadthatadherestothe provisionsofthisArticle." TheissueisnotedaboveiswhetherthisUniongrievanceisproperunderSection32 applicabletoanindividualissue.ItistheUnion'ssubmissionthatthefactsofthecasemeet therequirementsofArticle32.TheUnionreliesontheindividualSWFonhislayoffandthe applicationoftheSWFatthisperiod.ReferencewasmadetotheSt,LawrenceColleleaward (Laighton)andGeorgeBrownCollege(H.Snow)2001O,L,A.A,No.765.Itwassubmittedthat whileonalengthylayofftheemployeecannotbeexpectedtodealwithagrievanceissuewhich isthesituationintheSnowawardandwherethearbitratorstated"ThusIdirecttheEmployer toconsideritsownviolationofthecollectiveagreementwhenevertheseteachersarereviewed forpermanentstatusoratanyothertimetheEmployerreviewstheworkwhichtheseteachers (probationaryteachers)performedduringthewintertermof2001". Itwassubmittedthereforethattheissuedidnotsimplyrelatetoasingleemployeeand itwasproperfortheUnioninupholdingtheapplicationofthetermsofthecollective agreementtofileagrievanceunderSection32dealwiththeissuesunderArticle11.Therefore theUnionshouldbefoundtohavejurisdictiontoproceedwithitsgrievanceasanongoing problemwithinthebargainingunit. 6 AttheconclusionoftherepresentationsofCounseltotheBoard,itwasdeterminedin thecircumstancesthatthemajorityoftheBoardfoundthattheBoardmustdealwiththe situationasatthetimeofthegrievancewhichcannotbeexpandedastotheissueindispute butmustbeconsideredasofthedatefiled.Ms.Munt-Madilldissented. FollowingthisrulingandcompletingthesubmissionsofCounselandafurthershort recess,theBoardwasadvisedthatthepartiesrequestedanadjournmentofthehearingwhich theBoardgrantedandadjournedthemattersinedie. TheBoardfindsthattheissuesinthisgrievanceshouldhavebeenreferredtothe WorkloadMonitoringGroup(WMG)pursuanttoArticle11.02A6(a).Accordingly,theBoard doesnothavejurisdictiontodeterminethisgrlevance.Theseproceedingsareterminated. DATEDATOAKVILLETHIS13thDAYOFAUGUST,2013. HowardvD.Brown,Chair / PamelaMunt-Madill,UnionNominee J,9uelineCampbell,CollegeNominee Withallduerespect,ImustdisagreewiththeMajority.TheGrievanceinthiscaseis properlythesubjectofaUnionGrievanceasprovidedforinArticle32oftheCollective Agreement.AsisclearfromthefaceoftheGrievance,whatisbeinggrievedistheCollege'sprocedureinassigningworkloadstoprobationaryfaculty.Thatprocedureroutinelyresultsinprobationaryfacultybeingputinovertimesituationscontrarytotheprovisions ofArticle11oftheCollectiveAgreement.Furthermore,astheGrievancealsomakesclear,theremedyrequiredtopreventthisroutineviolationoftheCollective AgreementisasystematicevaluationandalterationoftheprocedurebywhichtheCollege assignsworkloadsbasedonenrollmentestimates.Thisisnotapracticewhichcan berectifiedbyreferencetotheWorkloadArbitratorassuggestedbytheMajority.Furthermore,thisisacaseofalegitimateUnioninterestintheprotectionofprobationary Professors.IftheseProfessorsareassignedexcessiveworkloadsitmayjeopardize theirabilitytoperformatthepeakoftheirabilityduringtheirprobationaryperiod.EliminationofthisriskisclearlyalegitimatefunctiontheUnion. Forthatreason,theMajorityshouldhavetakenjurisdictionoverthisgrievanceandheard thecaseonitsmerits.