Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Kashin 08-06-12
�y 90063 IN THE MATTER OF AN CD ARBITRATION R BETWEEN: � ® JUN 1 7 2008 SENECA COLLEGE Ministry of Labour Co DRS-ARSITRATIO,',1 SERVI CES (The College ) and - :o ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 560 (The "Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF DIANE KASHIN BOARD OF ARBITRATION David K.L. Starkman Chair John Podmore College Nominee Sherril Murray Union Nominee APPEARANCES FOR THE COLLEGE Craig Rix Counsel Jane Wilson Employee Relations Manager Michelle Alton Student-at-Law Mary Fisher Chair, Seneca College Tina DiSimone Dean, Seneca College Brenda Leader HR Partner, Seneca College Denise Chau Manager, Total Compensation Seneca College APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION Robin Gordon Grievance Officer Larry Olive Local 560 Ted Montgomery Local 560 A Hearing in this matter was held on April 29, 2008 at Toronto, Ontario. I 2 AWARD The grievor, Diane Kashin, alleges the; ...College has denied me the appropriate step progression and salary increases based on my acquisition of further education qualifications. The parties were able to agree on certain facts as follows: Diane Kashin was hired as a Full Time faculty Professor at Seneca College effective September 1, 1998. 2. She was initially placed at Step 8 of the Salary Grid. 3. Ms Kashin's initial placement was amended December 8, 2000, an additional two steps were assessed retroactive to hiring at September 1, 1998. 4. Ms Kashin's initial placement included credit for six years of University education. The Parties have no dispute that this is the maximum for initial placement. 3 5. On June 20, 2007 Ms Kashin successfully defended her doctoral dissertation to complete p to her Doctorate of Education with the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 6. On July 10, 2007 Ms Kashin wrote to Nancy Jeffs, salary administrator (academic employees) to advise her of the completion of her D.Ed. and inquire about a possible step progression. 7. Ms Jeffs wrote back on July 10, 2007 advising Ms Kashin that when your salary calculation was originally done, you were given total points for your education...(6 @ 1.5 point = 9)..." 8. Ms Kashin filed a grievance October 10, 2007 regarding step progression. 9. A Step 1 Grievance Meeting was held November 30, 2007, at which the matter was not resolved and the Grievance was referred to Arbitration December 4, 2007. 10. Ms Kashin commenced her PH.D. studies at OISE prior to the commencement of her employment with the College. 4 There were a number of provisions of the collective agreement referred to by the parties in their submissions and they are set out below: 14.01 A Determination of starting salaries and progression within the salary schedules shall be in accordance with the Job Classification Plans (see pages 139 -146). The application to certain present employees above the maximum step on the salary schedule shall continue as set out in 14.03. [Page 139] JOB CLASSIFICATION PLANS FOR POSITIONS IN THE ACADEMIC BARGAINING UNIT (To be used in determining salaries for Professors and Counsellors and Librarians and Instructors) SECTION I CLASSIFICATION PLAN FOR PROFESSORS AND COUNSELLORS AND LIBRARIANS FACTORS 1. APPOINTMENT FACTORS [Page 140] B) Relevant Formal Qualifications Formal qualifications are those which constitute the norm in institutions of post-secondary education in the Province of Ontario. Only full years of post-secondary education at successively higher levels, and leading to a diploma, professional accreditation or degree, are recognized. For p example, a graduate of a three-year technology program in a College would be given 1 Y2 points for each of the three years, regardless of the length of time actually spent by the individual in obtaining the diploma. 5 No credit is to be given for a year of study in which there was significant duplication of other studies. Therefore only the highest qualification will be used in computation unless the subject areas are from different disciplines and all relevant to the appointment. CAAT Diploma or Post-Secondary Certificate - per year (level) completed: 1 '/2 points (Maximum of 4 years) University Degree - per year (level) completed: (Maximum of 6 years) 1 '/2 points Formal integrated work/study program such as P.Eng., C.G.A., C.M.A. (formerly R.I.A.), Certified Journeyman* - per year (level) completed: 1 '/2 points (Maximum of 5 years) (Note that years included herein are not also to be included under Factor A) * "Journeyman" to be replaced with appropriate term when the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act is amended. C) Computing Initial Placement i)The minimum qualifications requirement is a count of 68points based upon the appointment factors. Since this is the minimum requirement, a total of 6 points corresponds to the minimum rate. (This is not intended to preclude a College from hiring an individual whose qualifications and experience total less than 8 points. In such cases, however, the individual would be hired at the minimum of the scale.) ii) Computation of the initial salary is, therefore, A + B - 6. The product is rounded to the next higher number, e.g. A = 4 '/2 points B = 5 points A + B = 91/2 points 91/2 - 6 = 31/2 = 4 The starting position is the corresponding step (Step 4) on the scale. i 6 iii) No individual will have a starting salary of less than the minimum on the salary scale 2. PROGRESSION FACTORS As per 14.03 A 2 (a), (b), and © annual base salary step increments up to and including the appropriate control point of the applicable salary schedule are based upon experience. Above the control point and up to the employee's maximum attainable salary step, annual base salary step increments are based on the employee's performance. A) Experience - to control point 1 step per year B) Performance - above control point where 1 step per year Performance satisfactory C) Further Formal Education - 1 step for each completed year where prior approval given by the at the post-secondary level College on the basis of the explanatory Notes set out in Section B of The Appointment Factors on Page 140. Note: No credit will be given where to do so would reduce total progression time to the appropriate maximum to less than 4 years. Special Note to Raters: If a given individual's qualifications and experience are such that the College concerned considers that person to be particularly important to its the t the salary as established b the Ian is inadequate, program bu ry Y P College may grant up to three additional steps on appointment provided the resultant rate does not place the individual above the maximum salary. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES The Union submitted that when the grievor was initially hired she had a College Degree, 7 an Honours Degree, and a Masters of Education and that she was therefore properly credited with six years for her initial placement. In the Union's submission, the issue for determination is whether the grievor was barred from further progression on the salary grid after obtaining additional years of post-secondary education because she had received the maximum of six years upon her initial placement. In its view the reference to the explanatory note on page 140 refers only to the first two paragraphs under section B) Relevant Formal Qualifications, and does not include the following bullet points which indicate that one gets 1 '/a points for each University degree completed to a maximum of six years. In the Union's submission there is a difference between initial placement and progression on the grid which is an entirely separate process. In its view the parties did not intend the six years to be a lifetime maximum, because the language clearly does not provide for this and because it would be contrary to the general purpose of encouraging its staff to further their education. Reference was made to the decision in Fanshawe College and Ontario Public Service to Em P Y ees Union, Grievance of Sandra McKay, unreported, May 4 1992, Jane Devlin. The College submitted that the provisions did in fact provide for a lifetime maximum of six years credit for placement on the grid for post-secondary education, and referred to articles 14.03A2(a), 14.03A2(b), and 14.03A2©, which refer to maximums and minimums. In its view, the collective agreement clearly provides for maximums and it 8 would take clearer language to require the College to move Professors up the wage grid should they have more than six years of post-secondary education. Reference was made to the decisions in The Ontario Public Service Employees Union and Northern College of Applied Arts and Technology, unreported, February 13, 1999, (R.O. MacDowell), Humber College and Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Grievance of R. Mills, unreported, May 19, 1998, (J.H. Devlin), Ontario Public Service Employees Union and Northern College of Applied Arts & Technology, Grievance of Bruce Fauvelle, unreported, September 18, 1992, (M.G. Mitchnick) DECISION Article 14.01 A provides that "Determination of starting salaries and progression within the salary schedules shall be in accordance with the Job Classification Plans (see pages 139 - 146)..., and it is agreed by the parties that, for the purpose of initial placement on the salary grid, a person can be credited with a maximum of 6 years of post-secondary education. The issue to be determined is whether an individual, such as the grievor, who had six years of relevant post-secondary education at the time of hiring and therefore received the maximum points at that time, is entitled in subsequent years to be further moved along the salary grid when they complete further years of post-secondary education. 9 The collective agreement addresses this issue and provides that a person can receive I step for each completed year at the post-secondary level - on the basis of the explanatory notes set out in Section B of the Appointment Factors on page 140". The paragraphs set out in Section B on page 140 provide as follows: B) Relevant Formal Qualifications Formal qualifications are those which constitute the norm in institutions of post-secondary education in the Province of Ontario. Only full years of post-secondary education at successively higher levels, and leading to a diploma, professional accreditation or degree, are recognized. For example, a graduate of a three-year technology program in a College would be given 1 '/2 points for each of the three years, regardless of the length of time actually spent by the individual in obtaining the diploma. No credit is to be given for a year of study in which there was significant r studies. Therefore only the highest qualification will be duplication of other Y g P used in computation unless the subject areas are from different disciplines and all relevant to the appointment. CAAT Diploma or Post-Secondary Certificate - pe year (level) completed: 1 '/2 points (Maximum of 4 years) - University Degree - per year (level) completed: (Maximum of 6 years) 1 '/2 points - Formal integrated work/study program such as P.Eng., C.G.A., C.M.A. (formerly R.I.A.), Certified Journeyman* - per year (level) completed: 1 '/2 points (Maximum of 5 years) (Note that years included herein are not also to be included under Factor A) * "Journeyman" to be replaced with appropriate term when the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act is amended. 10 In the Union's view, only the first two paragraphs can properly be characterized as explanatory notes, and the additional paragraphs, which place maximums on the placement, only relate to the initial placement on the salary grid and do not in any way restrict progression along the grid once the initial placement has been determined. None of the cases to which we were referred are directly applicable to the facts of this grievance, and neither party made reference to the past practice of this College or of any other College with respect to granting wage progression to persons who achieve more than six years of post-secondary education after they had been initially placed on the salary grid. On the contrary, both parties asserted the language of the collective agreement was clear and unequivocal and supportive of their position. The paragraphs which follow the "B) Relevant Formal Qualifications' determine how someone is to be initially placed on the salary grid. Page 141 sets out how a person is to progress on the wage grid and with respect to formal education. In this section the collective agreement references "where prior approval given by the College" which, in the context of this arbitration proceeding the parties agreed is not an issue in dispute. The collective agreement also provides that progression along the grid after initial placement is to be on the basis of the explanatory notes set out in Section B of the Appointment Factors on page 140. The obligation of this Board of Arbitration is to endeavour to discern the intention of the parties from the language they have used, and, to the extent possible, to give effect to 11 the plain and ordinary meaning of that language. The parties have clearly provided that, in the initial placement, there is to be credit for a maximum of six years of post- secondary education. They have also provided that progression along the grid is to be on the basis of the appointment factors on page 140. There is nothing in the appointment factors which either stylistically or linguistically suggests that there is to be a separation between the first two paragraphs and the indented sentences which follow and which limit the entitlements for certain types of post-secondary education. Accordingly, based on the submissions made, the Board has determined that the reference to the appointment factors on page 140 includes all of the paragraphs and words following "B) Relevant Formal Qualifications", which limits accreditation for post- ' secondary university education to a maximum of six years and the grievance is therefore dismissed. 12 Dated at Maberly, Ontario this 12" day of June, 2008 David K.L. Starkman Chair "I concur" John Podmore College Nominee "see attached dissent" Sherril Murray Union Nominee " In the matter between the parties regarding Ms. Kashin's placement on the salary grid , this member dissents from the award of the majority. As expressed by Union counsel, the language of the collective agreement does not support the decision of the majority." All of which is respectfully submitted, Sherril Murray, Union nominee