Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 14-04-15INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN: CAMBRIANCOLLEGE (the"College") -and ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEESUNION,LOCAL655 (the"Union") ANDINTHEMATTEROFAPOLICYGRIEVANCEREGARDINGSTAFFINGCAMBRIAN PROGRAMS BoardofArbitration:LouisaM.Davie,Chair PamelaMuntMadill,UnionNominee MarcPiquette,CollegeNominee Appearances FortheUnion: FortheCollege: MichaelFisher;Counsel TimothyLiznick,Counsel Award ThisgrievancearisesbecausetheOntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion,Local655 ("theUnion")claimsthatCambrianCollege("Cambrian"or"theCollege")hasnothired sufficientfull-timefacultytodeliveritsprograms. Thepartiesagreethatthisboardofarbitrationhasbeenproperlyappointedandhas jurisdictiontohearanddeterminethegrievance.TheCollegehoweverhasraise(Ja preliminaryobjectionthatthisgrievanceisnotarbitrableandthatitshouldbedismissed withoutafurtherhearing.Thisawardaddressesonlythatpreliminaryobjection. ForpurposesofdealingwithCambrian'spreliminaryobjectionthefactscanbebriefly stated. CambrianisacollegeofappliedartsandtechnologyestablishedundertheOntario CollegesofAppliedArtsandTechnologyAct,2002.Itsmaincampusissituatedin Sudbury,Ontario.Itdeliverspostsecondaryprogramsandgrantsdiplomasand certificatestostudentswhohavesuccessfullycompletedthoseprogramsunder authorityoftheprovinceofOntario.Thetermsandconditionsofemploymentpertaining toCambrianemployeesaregovernedbytheCollegesCollectiveBargainingAct,2008 ("CCBA"). CambrianhasenteredintoacontractwithHansonInternationalEducationand EmploymentServicesLtd.(hereafter"Hanson"). Hansonisno._tacollegeestablishedundertheOntarioCollegeofAppliedArtsand TechnologyAct,2002.Itisaprivateschoolincorporatedasabusinessandlicensedto operateinOntario.Asitisnotacollegethetermsandconditionsofemploymentofits employeesarenotgovernedbytheCCBA. AcopyofthecontractbetweenCambrianandHansonwastenderedinevidenceduring thesubmissionsofthepartieswithrespecttothispreliminaryissue.Astheeffectofthat contractisamatterindisputebetweenthepartieswed6notproposetooutlineitinany detail.WenoteonlythatbyreasonofthiscontractHansondeliversspecifiedCambrian programstostudentsatHansoncampusesintheGreaterTorontoArea.Onitsfacethe contractindicatesthatthoseCambrianprogramsaredeliveredtostudentsbypersons employedbyHanson,notCambrian. Thesubstanceofthegrievancebeforeusrevolvesaroundthedeliveryofthose Cambrianprogramsandthestatusofthepersonsdeliveringthoseprograms.Itisthe Union'spositionthatthosepersonsareorshouldbeCambrianemployees.More specifically,theUnionmaintainsthatifCambrianwantstodeliveritsprogramsto studentsinOntarioitmustemployasufficientnumberoffull-timefacultyforthat purpose. Thetextofthegrievancestates OPSEU655grievesthatCambrianCollegeisinbreachofthecollective agreement,specificallyarticle2.03A,bynotgivingpreferencetothedesignation offull-timepositionsasregularcontinuingteachingpositionsforthefollow)rig on-goingfull-timepost-secondaryCambrianCollegeprogramsbeing deliveredatCambrian-HansoncampusesintheTorontoarea: GeneralBusiness-TorontoCampus BusinessAccounting-TorontoCampus HotelandRestaurantManagement-BramptonCampus TravelandTourismManagement-BramptonCampus HumanResourcesManagement-BramptonCampus AssettlementtheUnionrequests"thehiringofsufficientfull-timefacultytodeliverthe spectrumofcourseswithintheprogramcurricula,giventhecurrentworkloadallocation provisionsofthecollectiveagreement,andtherapidlygrowingenrollmentoffull-time studentswithintheseCambrianCollegeprograms." Article2.03Areferencedinthegrievancestates: TheCollegewillgivepreferencetothedesignationoffull-timepositionsas regularcontinuingteachingpositionsratherthansessionalteachingpositions including,inparticular,positionsarisingasaresultofnewpost-secondary programssubjecttosuchoperationalrequirementsasthequalityofthe programs,enrollmentpatternsandexpectations,attainmentofprogram objectives,theneedforspecialqualificationsandthemarketacceptabilityofthe programtoemployers,studentsandthecommunity.TheCollegewMnotabuse sessionalappointmentsbyfailingtofillongoingpositionsassoonaspossible subjecttosuchoperationalrequirementsasthequalityoftheprograms, attainmentofprogramobjectives,theneedforspecialqualifications,and enrollmentpatternsandexpectations. InresponsetothegrievanceCambrian"assertsthatitdoesnotownoroperateHanson Collegeoranybusinesslocationidentifiedinthegrievance.TheCollegealsoasserts thatithasnoemployeesteachingintheprogram-locationcombinationsidentifiedinthe grievance.Asaresult,thisisnotapropergrievance,itisinarbitrable,andtheCollege maintainsthatnoboardofarbitrationconstitutedunderarticle32oftheacademic collectiveagreement,underwhichthisgrievanceisadvanced,hasjurisdictiontohear thismatter."TheCollegedeniedthegrievanceanddeniedbreachingarticle2.03Aof thecollectiveagreementoranyotherprovisionofthecollectiveagreement. TheSubmissionsoftleCollege InthispreliminarymotionCambrianmaintainsthatwedonothavejurisdictionbecause thepersonsemployedbyHansontodelivertheprogramsidentifiedinthegrievanceare notCambrianemployees.Inthisregarditreliesuponvariousprovisionsofthecontract betweenCambrianandHanson.Itsubmitstheapplicationofanyoftheusualteststo determinewhetheranemploymentrelationshipexistsbetweenCambrianandthe personsteachingtheprogramsidentifiedinthegrievanceindicatethatHansonisthe employerofthosepersons(seeforexamplethefourfoldtestinMontr6alv.Montreal LocomotiveWorksLimitedet.aL[t947]ID.L.R.161orthefactorssetoutinYork CondominiumCorporation[1977]OLRBReports645).AsHansonistheemployer andnotCambrianthecollectiveagreement,andinparticulararticle2.03A,cannotbe appliedtothoseteachingtheprogramsreferencedinthegrievance. InthisregardcounselforCambrianalsosubmittedthatitwasimportanttonotethatthe grievanceisnotagrievanceunderarticle1ofthecollectiveagreementwhichstates: 1.01TheUnionisrecognizedastheexclusivecollectivebargainingagencyfor allacademicemployeesoftheCollegesengagedasteachers,counsellors andlibrarians,allasmoreparticularlysetoutinArticle14,Salaries, exceptforthoselistedbelow: (i)Chairs,'b'-epartmentHeadsandDirectors, (ii)personsabovetherankofChair,DepartmentHeadorDirector, (iii) personscoveredbytheMemorandumofAgreementwiththe OntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnioninthesupportstaff bargainingunit, (iv)otherpersonsexcludedbythelegislation,and (v)teachers,counsellorsandlibrariansemployedonapart-timeor sessionalbasis. ThegrievancedoesnotassertthattheCollegehasfailedtorecognizetheUnionas bargainingagentforitsemployeesemployedatHanson.Thegrievanceasframeddoes notrevolvearoundissuesrelatingtothescopeofthebargainingunitasdefinedinthe collectiveagreementandundertheCCBAorwhetherCambrianisthe"true"employer ofpersonsteachingtheprogramsidentifiedinthegrievance.Insteadthegrievance assumesthosepersonsareemployeesofCambrianbecausethegrievancerefers specificallytoarticle2.03AwhichdealswithpersonswhoareemployeesoftheCollege andwhetherornotthecollegeisobligedtodesignatesuchemployeesasfull-time regularcontinuingteachingpositions.Counselarguedthatthescopeofthegrievance shouldnotbeexpandedtoraisethequestionastowhetherornotthepersons deliveringtheprogramsreferencedinthegrieva,nceareCambdanemployees.That wouldbetorecastthegrievancefiledintoamuchdifferentgrievance. CambrianalsoassertsthatinanyeventtheCCBAcan'tapplytoHansonemployeesas Hansonisnotan"employer"underthatActbecauseitisnota"college"established undertheOntarioCollegesofAppliedArtsandTechnologyAct,2002.Hansonisan employergovernedbytheLabourRelationsAct.Thefactofthese2differentstatutory schemesisfataltotheUnion'spositionthatthenatureoftheworkcarriedoutbythe personsdeliveringtheprogramsidentifiedinthegrievancemeansthattheyshouldbe treatedasCambrianemployees.Thereisnomechanismsuchasacommonorrelated employerapplicationintheCCBAwhichpermitsorenablesthisboardofarbitrationto declarethatHansonemployeesgovernedbytheLabourRelationsActshouldbe treatedasCollegeemployeesandmembersofthestatutorilydefinedacademic bargainingunit. ItwasCambrian'spositionthatthecollectiveagreementdoesnatprohibi{itfrom contractingout.Itisawell-establishedandacceptedprincipleinlabourlawthatwithout aspecificprovisioninthecollectiveagreementwhichprecludesitfromdoingsoan employermaycontractoutworkpursuanttoitsmanagementprerogativesandrights. (SeeRussellsteelLtd.andUnitedSteelworkersofAmericat7LAC253(Arthurs)). ThisprinciplewasspecificallyrecognizedinanawardbetweenthesepartiesinRe CambrianCollegeandO.P.S.E.U.,5L.A.C.(4th)325inwhicharbitratorSwanstated: Neitherpartyurgedustodepartfromthegeneralprincipleofarbitral jurisprudencetotheeffectthat,absentexpresslanguageinthecollective agreementtothecontrary,abonafidecontractingoutofworktonon-employees whoarenotwithinthebargainingunitisamanagementright:seeReU.S.W.A. andRusselsteelLtd.(1966),17L.A.C.253(Arthurs);ReKennedyLodgeNursing HomeandServiceEmployees'Union,Loc.204(1980),28L.A.C.(2d)388 (Brunner);Re401548OntarioLtd.andR.W.D.S.U.,Loc.448(1980),111D.L.R. (3d)502,28O.R.(2d)697(Ont.Div.Ct.).Itwascommongroundbetweenthe partiesthatthecollectiveagreementdoesnotspecificallyprohibitcontractingout ofworkofthekindhereatissue.TheUnionargues,however,thattheeffectof theCollegesCollectiveBargainingAct,andinparticularthesectionSsetout above,doprohibitcontractingout. Thecollege,however,arguesthattheeffectofsch.1oftheActissimplyto specifythedefinitionofthe"bargainingunit"inmuchthesamewayastheunit mightbedefinedbyalabourrelationstribunalunderotherlegislation,andthat therestofthelegislationsimplymakesarrangementsforcollectivebargainingin relationtothatbargainingunit.Inthecollege'ssubmission,thecriticalquestionis whetheraparticularpersonisoneof"theemployeesofallboardsofgovernorsof collegesofappliedartsandtechnologywhoareemployedasteachers".The college'spositionisthatMr.Farrellandhisfellowinstructorarenot"employees" andarenot"employedasteachers"bytheboardofgovernorsofthiscollege, andthattheythereforedonotfitwithinthisbargainingunit,althoughthey undoubtedlywouldiftheywereemployees. Wefindthisreasoningpersuasive.Theessenceofatruecontractingoutisto giveworkwhichmightbeperformedbyabargainingunitmembertothe employeeofanotherentity.Oncesomeoneisanemployeeofanotherentitythan theboardofgovernorsofthecollege,thatpersondoesnotfitwithinthedefinition ofthe"academicstaffIargainingunit"asspecifiedinsch.1totheAct,andthe Actthereforedoesnotapplytothatperson. InthepresentcaseCambrian,ingoodfaith,hasenteredintoabonafidecontractwith Hanson,anindependentthird-party.ThecontractpermitsHansontodeliverspecified CambrianprogramstostudentsatitscampusesandobligesCambriantograntstudents whosuccessfullycompletethoseprogramsacademiccredentials.Itwasnotedthatthis caseissomewhatuniqueinsofarasdeliveryofthespecifiedCambrianprogramsisto HansonstudentswhoareenrolledconcurrentlyatCambrianandatHanson.The studentsthereforearenotstudentsformerlytaughtbyCambfian'semployeeswhofall withintheCambrianacademicbargainingunit.TheCollegethereforemaintainsthat becausetheworkofdeliveringCambrianprogramstoHansonstudentswasnot formerlydonebybargainingunitmembersitcan'tbesaidtobe"contractedout"workin thelabourrelationssensei.e.itisnotworkwhichwasperformedbybargainingunit memberswhichhasbeengiventoemployeesofanotherentity.Neverthelessthe contractingoutprinciplesprovideanaptanalogywhichcanbeapplied.Thecollective agreementdoesnotprohibitcontractingoutandtheCollegehasnotviolatedanyarticle ofthecollectiveagreementbyreasonofitscontractualrelationshipwithHanson. InresponsetotheUnion'sassertionthattheCollegemustusebargainingunitmembers todeliveritsprogramscounselforCambrianarguedthatthecollectiveagreementdoes notcontainanyprovisionswhichrequirethatbargainingunitworkcan°nlYbe performedbymembersofthebargainingunit.(Thereisnot,forexample,anarticlein thecollectiveagreementthatnon-bargainingunitemployeesmaynotperform bargainingunitwork.IfaChairorDepartmentHeadexcludedfromthearticle1.01 Recognitionclausedeterminedtoteachaprogramthatwouldnotbeaviolationofthe collectiveagreement.)Itwassubmittedthatdeliveryofprogramsortheteachingof curriculumwasnotworkwhichwas"owned"exclusivelybythebargainingunitsothatit couldonlybeperformedbypersonsinthebargainingunit.Asaresultitwasnotopento thisboardofarbitrationtogranttheUnion'srequestforremedialreliefinsofarasUnion seeksadeclarationthattheworkbeingperformedbyHansonemployeesisbargaining unitworkwhichcanonlybeperformedbybargainingunitmembers.Thereistherefore noprimafaciecaseforthereliefsoughtandthisgrievanceshouldbedismissedwithout afurtherhearingintothemerits. TheUnion'sSubmissions •TheUniondoesnottakeissuewiththeestablishedprinciplethatwithoutaspecific provisioninthecollectiveagreementwhichprohibitsitfromdoingsoanemployermay contractoutbargainingunitwork.ItwastheUnion'spositionthattherehasnotbeena validcontractingoutandthisisnotasimplecontractingoutgrievance. TheUnionarguedthatwhatCambrianhasdonethroughitscontractualrelationswith HansonistoestablishasatellitecampusintheGreaterTorontoArea.Personsworking atthatsatellitecampusaredeliveringthesameCambrianprograms,inthesame manner,usingthesamecurriculumastheprogramsdevelopedandtaughtby bargainingunitmembersattheCollege'smainSudburycampus.Itwassubmittedthat throughitscontractualrelationshipCambrianhasintegratedHansonintoitscore businessofofferingpostsecondaryaccreditededucationalprogramsandacademic credentialstostudentswhocompletethoseprograms.Thatfactdistinguishesthiscase fromthemoretypicalcontractingoutcase.Thecontractheredoesnotinvolve peripheralservicessuchasfood,janitorialoradministrativesupportservices.Instead thelegislativelymandatedcorefunctionofofferingpostsecondarycoursesforcredithas beencontractedout. TheUnionmaintainsthatinthecircumstancesofthiscasetherehasnotbeenavalid contractingout.Itpointstovarious•portionsofthecontractbetweenHansonand CambrianinsupportofitspositionthatCambriancontinuestohaveoverall responsibilityfortheperformanceofthecorefunctionofdeliveringpostsecondary coursesforcreditsothattheworkcontinuestobebargainingunitwork. OnbehalfoftheUnionitwassubmittedthattheissuestobedeterminedbyreasonof thisgrievanceincludewhetherornotthepersonsdeliveringtheCambrianprograms referencedinthegrievanceareinfactandinlawCambrianemployees,whetherornot thesepersonsareperformingbargainingunitwork(whichhasnotbeenvalidly contractedout)andwhetherthereisasufficientamountofworktogivepreferenceto full-timepositionsasregularcontinuingteachingpositionsunderarticle2.03A.Those 10 •issuesareallmattersthatarearbitrable.ThisBoardofArbitrationhasjurisdictionto determinethoseissues.Moreoverthoseissuescannotbedeterminedwithoutahearing intothemeritsandShouldnotbedeterminedinthispreliminarymotion. TheUnionarguedthatthisisacaseoffirstimpression.Theissuesunderlyingthis grievanceastowhetherorno.tCambriancanandhasvalidlycontractedoutitscore functionhavenotbeendecidedbefore.UltimatelyitisUnion'spositionthatifCambrian wantstodeliveritsprogramstostudentsinOntarioitmustdosobyemploying memberswhofallwithintheparametersoftheacademicbargainingunit. Decision Wehavedeterminedthatwehavejurisdictiontohearanddeterminethegrievance,that theissuesraisedbythegrievancearearbitrable,andthattheCollege'spreliminary motionmustbedismissed.Moreover,inourviewthearbitrabilityissuesraisedbythe uniquefactsandcircumstancesshouldnotbedecidedinapreliminarymotionwhenthe partiesdisagreebothaboutsomeorallofthefactsandtherelevanceofthosefacts upontheissuesindispute.Theissuesraisedbythegrievancecanonlybedetermined attheconclusionofthecaseafteralltheevidencehasbeentenderedorafterallthe factshavebeenagreedupon.Inthisregardweareoftheviewthatthescopeofthe grievanceissufficientlybroadtoencompasstheissuesidentifiedbytheUnioninits submissions. ThesubstanceofthegrievancebeforeusisthatCambrianhasnotgivenpreferenceto thedesignationoffull-timep0s!tionsasregularteachingpositions.Wehavejurisdiction todecidethatmatter.Inourviewtheadjudicationofthatissuenecessarilyinvolvesus indeterminingwhetherthepersonsdeliveringtheprogramsidentifiedinthegrievance areCambrianemployees,performingbargainingunitwork,sothatarticle2.03Acanbe 11 appliedtothem.WhetherornottheyareCambrianemployeesdoingbargainingunit workmayinvolvedeterminationsastowhethertherehasbeenavalidcontractingout. AlthoughthecontractbetweenCambrianandHansonhasbeenplacedbeforeusthe formofthatdocumentcan'tbesolelydeterminativeofwhetherornottherehasbeena validcontractingout.Inthistypeofcaseswemustlooknotonlytotheformofthe contract,butalsotoitssubstanceandcontext.ThereIsthereforeinsufficientevidence beforeustodecide,onapreliminarybasis,whetherornotthecircumstanceshere amounttoavalidcontractingoutandasaresultwhetherornotarticle2.03Acanbe appliedtotheprogramsreferencedinthegrievancewhichtheUnionassertscomprise bargainingunitworkwhichcanonlybeperformedbymembersoftheacademic bargainingunit. Thecircumstancesbeforeusareuniqueandaccordingtocounselhavenotbeen decidedbefore.WehavedismissedtheCollege'spreliminarymotion.However,we consideritprudenttonotethatalthoughwehavejurisdictiontodecidetheissuesraised inthegrievance(i.e.HastheCollegeproperlycontractedoutbargainingunitwork?Are thepersonsdeliveringtheidentifiedprogramsCambrianorHansonemployees?)we acceptthesubmissionsoftheCollegethatiftherehasbeenavalidcontractingoutand thepersonsdeliveringtheprogramsreferencedinthegrievancearenotCambrian employeesthenneithertheCCBAorthiscollectiveagreementcanapplytothose persons.OurjurisdictionflowsfromtheCCBAandthecollectiveagreementanddoes notcoveremployeesregulatedbyanotherstatutoryschemesuchastheLabour RelationsAct.OurjurisdictiondoesnotextendtopersonsnotemployedbyaCollegeof AppliedArtsandTechnologyestablishedundertheOntarioCollegesofAppliedArts andTechnologyAct,2002.Thisissoeveniftheworkperformedisworkwhichcouldbe performedbyemployeesinthebargainingunit. 12 DatedatMississaugathis15thdayofApril,2014. LouisaDavie LouisaMDavie Iconcur/Pg4,e4 PamelaMunt-Madill PamelaMuntMadill-UnionNominee Iconcur/t4tisse MarcPiquette MarcPiquette-CollegeNominee