The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUnion 14-04-29INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN: GEORGEBROWNCOLLEGE -and ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEESUNION LOCAL557 GRIEVANCEREPROJECTMANAGER-BUSINESS,ARTS&DESIGN BOARDOFARBITRATION: JANEH.DEVLIN ANNE.BURKE SHERRILMURRAY CHAIR COLLEGENOMINEE UNIONNOMINEE JASONGREEN,FORTHECOLLEGE IOHNBREWIN,FORTHEUNION Inthegrievance,whichwasfiledbytheUnioninMarch,2008,itisalleged thatAliceLee,ProjectManager,Business,Arts&Design,hasbeenimproperly excludedfromthesupportstaffbargainingunit.Thisgrievanceisoneofanumberof grievancesfiledbytheUnionchallengingtheexclusionofpositionsfromthebargaining unit. 'OnMarch7'2011,thepartiesenteredintoamemorandumofagreemen regardingthegrievancesfiledbytheUnion.Amongothermatters,thememorandum providedthatgrievancesrelatedtoanumberofpositionswouldbedeterminedthrough anarbitrationprocessorbymutualagreement.ThosepositionsincludedProject Manager-Business,Arts&Design,MarketingManagerandManager,International Recruitment-Asia.Grievancesregardingthelattertwopositionsproceededto arbitrationandonFebruary13,2012,theBoardissuedanawarddealingwithShannon Ports,oneofthreeMarketingManagersattheCollege.OnMay15,2013,theBoard issuedanawarddealingwithCathyHeeKyoungLee,theManagerofInternational Recruitment-Asia. Attheoutsetofthehearingregarding..Ms.Lee's_position,Mr.Green,On behalfoftheCollege,raisedapreliminaryobjectiontothearbitrabilityofthegrievance. HesubmittedthatMs.Lee'sexclusionfromthebargainingunitisnotthepropersubject ofaUniongrieyanceasitinvolvesamatterinrespectofwhichanindividualemptoyee isentitledtogrieve.Inthesecircumstances,Mr-.GreencontendedthattheBoardis 2 withoutjurisdictiontohearthegrievance.Mr.GreenacknowledgedthattheCollege firstadvisedtheUnionofitsObjectiontoarbitrabilityoneweekpriortothehearing.Mr. Brewin,onbehalfoftheUnion,submittedthatexclusionofMs.Lee'spositionfromthe bargainingunitisnotamatterinrespectofwhichanemployeecouldgrieveandthat,in anyevent,theCollege'sobjectiontoarbtk'y.hes?beenwaived. Article18.3.3ofthecollectiveagreement,whichdeals.withaunion grievance,providesasfollows: 18,3.3UnionGrievance TheUnionshallhavetherighttofileagrievancebasedonadifferencearisingdirectlyoutoftheAgreementconcerningtheinterpretation,application,administrationorallegedcontraventionofthisagreement.However,suchgrievanceshallnotincludeanymatteruponwhichanemployeeispersonallyentitled togrieveandtheregulargrievanceprocedureforagrievanceparticularto anindividualemployeeshallnotbebypassedexceptwheretheUnionestablishesthattheemployeehasnotgrievedanunreasonablestandardthatispatentlyinviolationofthisAgreementandthatadverselyaffectstherightsofpersons inthebargainingunit.AUniongrievanceshallbepresentedinwriting,signedbytheLocalUnionPresidentorhis/herdesigneetOtheD!rectorofHuman ResourcesorasdesignatedbytheCollegeconcerned,withinthirty(30) daysafterthecircumstancesgivingrisetothecomplainthaveoccurred,orcometo oroughtreasonablytohavecometotheattentionoftheUnion.Thegrievance shallthenbeprocessedinaccordancewithStepNo.3ofthe grievanceprocedure. Alsoofrelevancearethefollowingprovisionsoftheagreement: t=RECOGNITION 1.1ExclusiveBargainingAgent 3 TheUnionisrecognizedastheexclusivebargainingagentforallSupport StaffemployeesoftheCllege,saveandexcept: foremenandsupervisors; personsabovetherankofforemanorsupervisor employeesperformingdutiesthatrequiretheuseofconfidential informationrelatingtoemployeerelationsandtheformulationof theCollegebudgetortheCampusbudget,asthecasemaybe; personsregularlyemployedfortwenty-four(24)hoursperweekor less; studentsemployedonacooperativeeducationaltrainingprogram, withaschool,collegeoruniversity; -graduatesoftheCollegeemployedforuptotwelve(12)months followingcompletionoftheircoursesandassociatedwith certification,registrationorotherlicensingrequirements; personshiredforaprojectofanon-recurringkind. t8.t.4Grievance "Grievance"meansacomplaintinwritingarisingfromtheinterpretation, application,administrationorallegedcontraventionofthisAgreement. t8.5.1Grievances Acomplaintshallbetakenupasagrievanceinthefollowingmannerandsequenceprovideditispresentedwithinfifteen(15)daysafterthecircumstancesgiving risetothecomplainthaveoccurred,orhavecomeoroughtreasonablyto havecometotheattentionoftheemployee. APPENDIXB InclusionProcedures ThepEitirecognizethatthequestionofwhetherornotaparticularpersonisor isnotamemberofthebargainingunithasnottraditionallybeendealtwithatthe bargainingtable,andhasnormallybeenresolvedbydirectdiscussionbetweenthe Council/CollegeandtheUnionorbytheOntarioLabourRelationsBoard basedontheexistingdutiesandresponsibilitiesofthepersoninquestion. ThefollowingconditionsareapplicabletopersonswhoareemployedbyaCollegeofAppliedArtsandTechnology(hereinaftercalledthe"College")inpositions designatedasAdministrativeStafforotherwiseexcludedfromthe 4 SupportStaffBargainingUnitandwhoarefoundtobebargainingunitemployees asaresultofspecificdecisionsoftheOntarioLabourRelations BoardorbyagreementoftheCouncil/CollegeandtheUnion: Inaddition,referencewasmadetothefollowingprovisionsofthe CollegesCollectiveBargainingAct,2008: Definitions 1=InthisAct, "Employee"meansapersonwhoisemployedbyanemployerandisa memberofabargainingunit; Membersofbargainingunit 71___.If,inthecourseofbargainingforacollectiveagreementorduringthe periodofoperationofcollectiveagreement,aquestionarisesastowhetherapersonisamemberofabargainingunit,thequestionmaybereferredtotheOntario LabourRelationsBoardanditsdecisionthereonisfinalandbindingfor allpurposes. SCHEDULE1 Fulltimesupportstaffbargainingunit 3.Thefulltimesupportstaffbargainingunitincludesallpersonsemployed byanemployerinpositionsorclassificationsintheoffice,clerical,technical,healthcare,maintenance,buildingervice;shipping,transportation, cafeteriaandnurserystaff,butdoesnotinclude, (a)foremenorsupervisors; (b)personsabovetherankofforemanorsupervisor; (c)personsemployednacontTdentialcapacityinmattersrelatedtoemployee relationsortheformulationofabudgetofacollegeorof aconstituentcampusofacollege,includingpersonsemployedin clerical,stenographicorsecretarialpositions; (d) (e) otherpersonsemployedinamanagerialorconfidentialcapacity withinthemeaningofsection5ofthisSchedule; personswhoareincludedinthepart-timesupportstaffbargaining unit; (f)studentsemployedinaco-operativeeducationaltrainingprogram undertakenwithaschool,collegeoruniversity; (g)agraduateofacollegeduringtheperiodof12monthsimmediately followingcompletionofacourseofstudyorinstructionatthe collegebythe.graduateiftheemploymentofthegraduateis associated=withacertification,registrationorotherlicensing requirement; (h)apersonwhoisamemberofthearchitectural,dental,engineering, legalormedicalprofession,entitledtopracticeinOntarioand employedinaprofessionalcapacity;or (i)apersonemployedoutsideOntario. Mr.GreennotedthatundertheCollegesCollectiveBargainingActin effectpreviously,thesupportstaffbargainingunitwasdescribedasincluding "employees"invariouspositionsorclassificationswhereastheActnowrefersto "persons"employedbyanemployer.Healsonotedthattherewassomechangetothe languageofsection71andthatunderthepredecessorlegislation,section81oftheAct providedasfollows: Whetherpersonemployee .81.Ifinthecourseofbargainingforanagreementorduringtheperiodof operationoftheagreement,aquestionarisesastowhetherapersonisanemployee,incliJdingiqLitionastowhetherapersonemployedasahair,departmenthead,director,foremanorsupervisorisernployedinamanagerialor 6 confidentialcapacitywithinthemeaningofthedefinitioninsectioniof"personemployed inamanagerialorconfidentialcapacity"andtheSchedules,thequestion maybereferredtotheOntarioLabourRelationsBoardanditsdecision thereonisfinalandbindingforallpurposes. WithregardtotheCollege'spreliminaryobjection,Mr.Greensubmitted thatunderthecollectiveagreement,therearemutuallyexclusiveprocessesfor individualgrievancesandpolicygrievances.Intheecircumstances,hecontendedthat animproperlyfiledpolicygrievancedoesnotinvolveaproceduraldefectbutrathera mattergoingtothefundamentaljurisdictionoftheBoard.Mr.Greensubmittedthat suchanobjectioncanberaisedatanytimeandisnotsubjecttowaiver.Healso submittedthatthepadiesagreedtoaverynarrowrangeofissuesthatcanbethe subjectofauniongrievance.Henoted,aswell,thatalthoughtheUnionfiledanumber ofgrievanceschallengingtheexclusionofpositionsfromthebargainingunit,the grievanceshavenotbeenconsolidated.Instead,theyarebeingheardindividually pursuanttotheprocedureagreedtobetweentheparties. Mr.GreencontendedthatalthoughMs.Leeiscurrentlyexcludedfromthe suppodstaffbargainingunit,thegrievanceinvolvesaclaimthatsheisperformingwork thatfallswithinthescopeoftheunit.Asaresult,hesubmittedthatthegrievance raisesanissueinrespectofwhichMs.Leecouldfileanindividualgrievance.He contendedthaisuchanissueinvolvesamatterrelatingtotheinterpretation, application,administrationorallegedcontraventionoftheagreementand,'therefore, satisfiesthedefinitionofagrievancecontainedinArticle18.1.4.Mr.Ormenalso submittedthatMs.Leemusthavearighttofileagrievanceclaimingthatsheis ? performingworkofthebargainingunitbecause,ifsuccessful,shewouldbean "employee"forpurposesoftheCollegesCollectiveBargainingAct,2008andamember ofthesupportstaffbargainingunit.Accordingly,Mr.Greencontendedthataclaim relatingtoMs.Lee'sexclusionfromtheunitisnottheproperSubjectofaUnion grievance.Inthisregard,henotedthattheUnionwasnotallegingthatitcouldbypass theprocedureforanindividualgrievancebecauseMs.Leefailedtogrievean unreasonablestandardthatispatentlyinviolationoftheagreementandthatadversely affectstherightsofpersonsinthebargainingunit,Mr.Greensubmitted,aswell,that theUnionisnotwithoutaremedybecauseitcanpursuetheissueofMs.Lee's exclusionbeforetheOntarioLabourRelationsBoard. Mr.GreenalsosubmittedthatunderAppendixBtothecollective agreement,thepartieshaveagreedtocertainconditionsthatapplytopersonsin positionsexcludedfromthebargainingunitwhoarefoundtobemembersoftheunitas aresultofadecisionoftheOntarioLabourRelationsBoardoranagreementbetween theCouncil/CollegeandtheUnion.Asthepartieshavelimitedthecircumstancesto whichAppendixBapplies,Mr.Greencontendedthatanindividualemployeemusthave arighttofileagrievanceclaimingthatheissheisperformingworkofthebargaining unit.Mr.GreenalsoreferredtotheCollegesCollectiveBargainingAct,2008and submittedthattheActisconcernedwiththenatureoftheWorkperformedbypersons employedbyaCollege.Mr.Greencontendedthatiftheworkinquestionfallswithin thestatutorybargainingunft,theindividualsperformingtheworkareemployeesfor purposesoftheActandthecollectiveagreement.Intheresult,Mr.Greencontended 8 thattheclaimthatMs.Leehasbeenimproperlyexcludedfromthebargainingunit involvesamatterinrespectofwhichMs.Leeispersonallyentitledtogrieveand, accordingly,itisnotthepropersubjectofaUniongrievance. ItwasthesubmissionofMr.BrewinthatArticle18,5ofthecollective agreementreferstotherightofan"employee',tofileagrievanceandthatArticle18,3.3 provdesthataUniongrievanceshallnotincludeamatterinrespectofwhichan "employee"ispersonallyentitledtogrieve.Mr.Brewinalsonotedthatunderthe CollegesCollectiveBargainingAct,anemployeeisdefinedasapersonwhois employedbyanemployerandisamemberofabargainingunit.Inviewofthese provisions,Mr.Brewinsubmittedthatanindividualmustbeamemberofthesupport staffbargainingunitinordertofileagrievanceunderthecollectiveagreement.For purposesofthiscase,Mr.Brewincontendedthatitisunnecessarytodecidewhethera grievancecouldbefiledbyamemberoftheacademicbargainingunit.Mr.Brewinalso submittedthatitisunlikelythatamemberofmanagement,suchasMs.Lee,wouldfile agrievanceseekinginclusioninthesupportstaffbargainingunit. Mr.Brewinfurthersubmittedthattheissueofanindividual'sinclusionor exclusionfromthebargainingunitinvolvesalabourrelationsissue,whichdoesnot dependonthechoiceoftheindividualAsthebargainingunitisdefinedbystatute,Mr. BrewinsubmittedthatitwouldbecontrarytotheschemeoftheCoflegesCollective BargainingActtoleaveituptoanindividualtodecidewhethertopursueaclaimfor 9 inclusioninthebargainingunit.Heacknowledged,however,thattheUnioncouldrefer thessuetotheLabourRelationsBoard. Inanyevent,Mr.Brewinsubmittedthatthegrievanceinthiscasewas filedin2008andtheCollegefirstadvisedtheUnionofitspreliminaryobjectionin December,2013.Inthesecircumstances,itwascontendedthattheCollegewaivedits righttoobjecttotheformofthegrievance,Insupportofthissubmission,Mr,Brewin contendedthattheCollege'sobjectionrelatestoaproceduralmatter,ratherthan mattergoingtothefundamentaljurisdictionoftheBoardandasitwasnotraisedina timelymannerlitmustbedeemedtohavebeenwaived.Inthealternative,Mr.Brewin submittedthatinthememorandumofagreementexecutedinMarch,2011,theparties agreedthatcertaingrievances,includingthegrievancerelatingtothepositionoccupied byMs.Lee,wouldbedeterminedatarbitration.Onthisbasis,itwascontendedthat thepartiesexpresslyagreedthattheBoardofArbitrationhasjurisdictiontohearand determinethegrievance. Bywayofreply,Mr.Greensubmittedthatthememorandumofagreement enteredintoinMarch,2011providesonlythatcertaingrievanceswillbedeterminedat arbitration.Mr.Greencontendedthatthereisnothinginthememorandumtoindicate thattheCollegewaiveditsrighttoraiseapreliminaryobjectionortoprecludethe Collegefromassertingilslegalrights.Mr.Greenalsosubmittedthatalthoughthe Unionsuggestedthatamemberofmanagementwouldbeunlikelytofileagrievance seekinginclusioninthebargainingunit,Article18.3.3precludestheUnionfromfilinga t0 grievanceincircumstanceswhereanemployeeis"personallyentitledtogrieve". Accordingly,Mr.Greencontendedthattheissueturnsonanemployee'srighttogrieve andnotontheintentionoftheindividualemployee.Healsosubmittedthatan individualwhoisexcludedfromthebargainingunitmustbeabletofileagrievance claimingthatheorsheoughttobeincludedintheunitandthattheCollege'sobjection relatestothefundamentaljurisdictionoftheBoard. Decision Thegrievance,whichwasfiledbytheUnioninthespringof2008,alleges thatMs.Lee,whooccupiesthepositionofProjectManager-Business,Arts&Design, hasbeenimproperlyexcludedfromthesupportstaffbargainingunit.Itwasnot suggestedthattheissueraisedinthegrievanceisbeyondthescopeofthecoliective agreementorthatthedispute,initsessentialcharacter,doesnotarisefromthe interpretation,application,administrationorallegedviolationoftheagreement:see Weberv.OntarioHydro[1995]2S.C.R.929.Therewasalsonosuggestionthat, wheresuchanissueisraised,aBoardofArbitrationlacksjurisdictiontointerpretthe CollegesCollectiveBargainingAct.Instead,theCollegecontendedthattheissueis thepropersubjectofanindividualgrievanceandthat,inthesecircumstances,itwas notopentotheUniontefileapolicygrievance. Article18.3.3,whichdealswithauniongrievance,providesthattheUnion hastherighttofile-agrievancebasedOnadifferencearisingdirectlyoutofthe 1] agreementconcerningtheinterpretation,application,administrationoralleged contraventionoftheagreement.However,theArticlealsoprovidesthatsucha grievanceshallnotincludeanymatteruponwhichanemployeeispersonallyentitledto grieveandtheregulargrievanceprocedureforagrievanceparticulartoanindividual employeeshallnotbebypassedexceptwheretheUnionestablishesthattheemployee hasnotgrievedanunreasonablestandardthatispatentlyinviolationoftheagreement andthatadverselyaffectstherightsofpersonsinthebargainingunit.Inthiscase,it wasnotallegedthatthelattercriteriahavebeenmetand,accordingly,theonlyissue betweenthepartiesiswhetherthegrievanceinvolvesamatterinrespectofwhichan employeeispersonallyentitledtogrieve.UndertheCollegesCollectiveBargainingAct, an"employee"isdefinedasapersonwhoisemployedbyanemployerandisa memberofabargainingunit. Ms.Leeiscurrentlyamemberofmanagementandis,therefore,excluded fromthesupportstaffbargainingunit.Moreover,whileweagreewiththeUnionthatit maybeunlikelythatshewouldfileagrievanceseekinginclusion.intheunit,asthe Collegenoted,underArticle18.3.3,theUnionisprecludedfromfilingagrievance involvingamatterinrespectofwhichanemployeeis"entitled"togrieve.TheCollege furthercontendedthatMs.Leemusthavetherighttofileagrievanceclaimingthather workfallswithinthescopeofthebargainingunitbecauseifshewerecorrectinthat regard,shewouldpropedybean"employee"forpurposesofthecollegesCollective BargainingActandthecollectiveagreement.However,evenifweweretoacceptthe College'ssubmissionregardingMs.Lee'srighttogrieve,theBoardfindsthathavingnot 12 raisedanyobjectiontotheformofthegrievanceuntilDecember,2013,theCollegehas waiveditsrighttodoso. InanumberofawardstowhichtheBoardwasreferred,Arbitratorsand BoardsofArbitrationhaveconsideredobjectionsonthepartofanemployertoa grievanceorgrievancesfiledbytheunion.Someoftheawardsinvolvedgrievances whichwerefiledundertheacademiccollectiveagreement.Areviewoftheseawards indicatesthatthereissomedifferenceofopinionamongArbitratorsandBoardsof Arbitrationregardingtheappropriatecharacterizationofthetypeofobjectionadvanced bytheCollegeinthiscase. InCambrianCollegeandOntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion September11,2002(Brown(unreported)),towhichtheCollegereferred,theunionfiled agrievanceundertheacademicagreementclaimingaviolationofthesickleave provisionsofthecollectiveagreementandafailuretoremitappropriatedues.The collegeraisedapreliminaryobjectiontothearbitrabilityoftheuniongrievanceunder article32.10,whichissimilarinallmaterialrespectstoArticle18.3.3ofthesupportstaff collectiveagreement.Inconsideringthisobjection,themajorityoftheBoardfoundthat theclaimrelatingtothepaymentofdueswasthepropersubjectofauniongrievance butthattheclaimhadbeenresolvedbythesettlementofanindividualgrievance,The majorityalsofoundthattheclaimrelatingtotheallegedviolationofthesickleave provisionsarosefromthesamesetofcircumstancesastheindividualgrievanceand thatthecriteriaforbypassingtheprocedureapplicabletoanindividualgrievancehad ]3 notbeenmet.Inupholdingthecollege'sobjection,themajorityoftheBoardconcluded thattheobjectionconcernedafundamentalissueofjurisdictionwhichcouldberaised atanytimeandcouldnotbewaived.Inthisregard,themajoritycommentedasfollows: TheissueraisedinthepreliminaryobjectionoftheCollegemustbedetermined inconsiderationoftheapplicationofArticle32.t0ofthecollectiveagreementto thegrievanceoftheUnion.Wefindtheobjectionraisedtothisgrievance concernsafundamentalissueofjurisdictionoftheBoardofArbitrationwhich maY.ari§eatanytimeoftheproceedingsandcannotbewaived.TheUnion mustmeettheconditionsofArticle32.10inordertoproceedwithitsgrievance apartfromandinadditiontothatfiledbyMr.Levesquewhichwasdealtwithby theCollegeandwithdrawnbytheUnion.Itsgrievancehowever,wasnot withdrawnorotherwiseresolvedbufwhatthatgrievanceallegesisthefailureof theCollegetoproperlyadministerthesickleavepaymentsunderArticle17and to(sic)therequisiteduestotheUnion.Thesecondpartofthatclaimisclearlya properclaimoftheUnionagainsttheCollegebutthatwasresolvedbypaymentoftheduesowingtotheUnioninthegrievancesothatissueontheface oftheUnion'sgrievancedidnotcontinueineffect. TheCollege'sobjectiontothejurisdictionoftheBoardbeingafundamentalissue assetoutaboveisnotthesubjectofwaiver,norwefindistheCollege estoppedfromraisingthisissueofjurisdictionwhichtheBoardmustfindand assertbeforeitcouldproceedtodeterminethemeritsoftheUnion'sgrievance. AsstatedbyArbitratorGorsky: "Aboardofarbitrationcannotcreateitsownjurisdiction.Itmustbe derivedfromthecollectiveagreement,ortheLabourRelationsAct,..." InFanshaweCollegeandOPSEUDecember10,2007(Knopf (unreported)),theunionfiledagrievanceundertheacademiccollectiveagreement challengingthemannerinwhichthecollegehadgrantedprofessionaldevelopment leavetoaparticularprofessor.Thecollegeobjectedtothearbitabtlityofthegrievance underarticle32.09(previouslyarticle32.10)andbasedontheearlierCambrianCOllege awardtowhichtheBoardwasreferred,itfoundthatthecollege'sobjectionconcerneda 14 fundamentalquestionofjurisdiction.Accordingly,theBoardfoundthatthecollegewas notprecludedfromraisingsuchanobjectionforthefirsttimeshortlybeforethehearing. InasubsequentawardinDurhamCollegeandOntarioPublicSevviceEmployees' Union,Local354November1,2012(Knopf(unreported)),themajorityoftheBoard alsoreferredtothecollege'sobjectiontoauniongrievancewhichwasfiledunderthe academiccollectiveagreementasinvolvingaquestionofjurisdiction. Followingthehearinginthiscase,theCollegesubmittedarecentdecision ofaBoardchairedbyArbitratorLeightoninCanadoreCollegeandOntarioPublic ServiceEmployeesUnion,Local657January29,2014(unreported).Inthefirstoftwo grievanceswhichhadbeenfiledbytheunioninthatcase,itwasallegedthatthe collegehadimproperlyassignedtheworkofcertainstudentcounsellorstopositionsin thesupportstaffbargainingunitandtheunionclaimedthattheworkbelongedinthe academicbargainingunit.Inthesecondgrievance,itwasallegedthatthecollegehad laidoffanumberofstudentcounsellorscontrarytothecollectiveagreement.The collegeobjectedtothearbitrabilityofthegrievancesunderArticle32.09ofthe academicagreementonthebasisthattheyinvolvedmattersinrespectofwhich individualemployeesoragroupofemployeescouldhavegrieved.Themajorityofthe Boardupheldtheobjectionasitfoundthatthecounsellorscouldh'avegrievedtheir layoffsandthattrackemployees,whohadbeenassignedtodirectstudentstoservices withinthecommunity,couldhavefiledgrievancesclaimingthattheywereimproperly classified.Therewasnosuggestionthattheprocessapplicabletoindividualorgroup 15 grievancescouldhavebeenbypassedbasedonthecriteriasetoutinArticle32.09and, accordingly,themajorityoftheBoardfoundthatitdidnothavejurisdictiontohearthe grievances. IntheCanadoreCollegeaward,theBoarddidnotconsiderwhetherthe. college'sobjectionconcernedafundamentalissueofjurisdictionorwhetheritwas proceduralinnatureandcouldhavebeenwaived.However,thatissuewasconsidered byArbitratorLeightoninanearlierawardinGoverningCounciloftheUniversityof Torontov.CanadianUnionofPublicEmployees,Local3902[2009]O.L.A.A.No.126. Inthatcase,theuniversityraisedapreliminaryobjectiontothearbitrabilityofaunion grievance,whichchallengedthepostingofateachingassistantpositiononthebasis thatitgavepreferencetocertainstudents.Thecollectiveagreementspecifiedthatthe provisionsdealingwithapolicygrievancecouldnotbeusedbytheuniontoinstituteor duplicateanyindividualorgroupgrievancedirecilyaffectinganemployeeoremployees whichsuchemployeeoremployeescouldpersonallyinitiate.ArbitratorLeightonfound thatitwasopentothepartiestonegotiatelimitationsonparticulartypesofgrievances andsheconcludedthatthegrievancebeforehercouldhavebeenfiledbyanindividual employeeorbyagroupofemployees.Inthesecircumstances,sheconcludedthatthe collectiveagreementprecludedtheunionfromfilingapolicygrievance. ArbitratorLeightonthenconsideredwhethertheuniversityhadwaivedits righttoobjecttotheformofthegrievancebecauseitraiseditsobjectionforthefirst timeatthehearing.Shefoundthattheobjectionwasnotmerelyproceduralinnature 16 andthatthecollectiveagreementspecificallyoustedthedghtoftheuniontofilea policygrievancewhenanindividualemployeecouldgrieve.Shealsofoundthatasthe university'sobjectionwenttojurisdiction,itcouldnotbewaived.Inrea;hingthis conclusion,ArbitratorLeightoncommentedasfollows: ThenextissuebeforemeiswhethertheUniversitywaiveditsrighttoobjecttothe formofthegrievance,becauseitdidnotraisetheissueuntilthehearing.CounselfortheUnionsubmitsthat,havingnotpreserveditsrighttoobject,the Universityhaswaiveditsrights,CounselfortheUniversityarguesthatthisisnotaproceduralobjectionbutonethatgoestomyjurisdiction.Itiswell-established lawthatjurisdictioncannotbewaived.InTorontoDistrictSchoolBoard,supra,ArbitratorSchiffsaidthatindecidingtheIssueofwhethertheUnionshouldhave filedindividualgrievancesinsteadofapolicygrievance,thatthedefectwasnot merelyprocedural. ButanobjectiontoaUnionbringingagrievanceanindividualemployee mighthavebroughtunderadifferentcollectiveagreementprovisionisa challengetojurisdiction.ThatistheresultofReSudburyMine,Mill& SmelterWorkersandInt'lNickelCo.(1962),35D.L.R.(2d)371,inthecourt ofAppealforOntario.And,accordingtotheopinionofmanyarbitrators,a jurisdictionalobjectioncannotbewaived,(atparat5). Iampersuadedthattheobjectionisnotmerelyproceduralinthiscase,Thelanguageofthiscollectiveagreementspecificallyouststherighttofileapolicygrievanceifanindividualcouldgrieve.Giventheobjectiongoestojurisdictionit cannotbewaived. AstheUnionnotedinthiscase,theInt'lNickelCo.decision,whichwas referredtobyArbitratorSchiffintheTorontoDistrictSchoolBoardcaseandreliedonby ArbitratorLeighton,didnotdealwiththeissueofwaiver.IntheInt'lNickelCo.case,the companyobjectedfromtheoutsettoauniongrievanceallegingthatemployeeshad beenimproperlypaidfortheperiodwhichincludedChristmasandNewYearlsDay.The majorityoftheBoardfoundthatthecollectiveagreementprovidedmutuallyexclusive 1? proceduresfordealingwithdifferencesbetweenemployeesandthecompanyand differencesbetweentheunionandthecompany.Onthisbasis,thecompany's objectionwasupheld.AlthoughtheawardwassubsequentlyquashedbytheDivisional Courtonanapplicationforcertiorari,thatdecisionwassetasidebytheCourtofAppeal onthebasisthattheinterpretationofthemajorityoftheArbitrationBoardwasonethat thelanguageofthecollectiveagreementcouldreasonablybear. InSt.ClairCatholicDistrictSchoolBoardv.OntarioEnglishCatholic Teachers'Assn.(St.ClairSecondaryUnit)[2011]O.L.AA.No.63(Luborsky),ateacher filedagrievancecontestingthedenialofherapplicationforrecognitionofrecentrelated employmentexperience.Theunionalsofiledapoltcygrievanceandtheschoolboard objectedtothelattergrievanceonthebasisofaprovisioninthecollectiveagreement whichspecifiedthatapolicygrievancecouldnotbefiledincircumstanceswherean individualgrievancecouldbefiled.ArbitratorLuborskyconcludedthatalthoughthe objectionwasnotraisedinatimelymanner,itdidnotconcernaproceduraldefect, whichcouldbewaived.Instead,hefoundthatitinvolvedafundamentaliSSUeof jurisdictionand,asaresult,hedismissedthegrievance. Wenotethatinreachingthisconclusion,Arbitra!or.Luborskyreferredtoan awardofArbitratorLaneinReOil,ChemicalandAtomicWorkers,Local9-593and BritishAmericanOilCo.Ltd.(1965),15L.A.C.408.Inthatcase,theunionfileda grievanceatstep3inwhichitclaimedthatanemployeehadbeenimproperly 18 discharged.TheBoardfoundthatasanindividualgrievancecouldhavebeenfiled,the unioncouldnotfileapolicygrievanceanditwasnotamatterthatcouldbewaivedby theemployer.AlthoughArbitratorLuborskynotedthatanapplicationforcertiorarifiled bytheunionwasdismissed,thedismissalwasbasedonothergrounds.TheCourt foundthattheemployerhasnotraisedanyobjectiontotheformofthegrievanceatthe timeitwasfiledandthatbyitsconduct,itwaivedanyimproprietyIntheprocedureand forfeiteditsrighttocomplain:seeReReginav.Laneetal.exarteGreenataL[1966] CLLCpara14,137(Ont.H.C.) IncontrasttotheawardsreliedonbytheCollegeareanumberofawards whichwerereferredtobytheUnion.InTheOntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion, Local560andSenecaCollegeofAppliedArtsandTechnologyOctober,291998 (MacDowell(unreported)),theunionfliedagrievanceundertheacademiccollective agreementclaimingthatlabmonitorshadbeenimproperlyexcludedfromthebargaining unit.Forreasonssetoutintheaward,themajorityoftheBoardconcludedthatthe issuewasthepropersubjectofauniongrievanceunderarticle32.10.However,the majorityalsofoundthatifitwaswronginthatregard,thecollegehadwaivedanyright thatitmayhavehadtoobjecttotheformofthegrievance.Inaddressingthenatureof thecollege'sobjectionandthesubjectofwaive[tr.lemajoritycommentedasfollows: Therewasnoinitialobjectiontotheformofthisgrievance.Norwasthereany assertionthatthestepstakenbytheuniondidnotcomplywiththerequirements ofArticle32.10.Andtheemployerwasnotblindtopotentialproblemsof "arbitrability",becauseitquarreledwiththetimelinessofthegrievance,relying uponalaterportionofthatsameArticlethatitreliesontoattacktheabilityofthe ]9 uniontogrieve.Inotherwords,theCollegeDIDraiseandcrystalizeaquestionof arbitrability-justnottheoneitdecidedtoraise!6monthslater. Noquestionof"form"wasraisedinthecourseofthegrievanceprocedure,prior tooronthereferraltoarbitration,orbeforetheconstitutionofthisboard;andin ourview,thatamountstoarepresentationthat,timelinessaside,thegrievance wasproperlyframedandarbitrable.Itwouldhavebeeneffortlesstoraisean alternativegroundgoingto!'arbitrability",buttheemployerdidnotdoso,and,in thecircumstanceswouldreasonablybetakenasaccedingtotheform(although notthetimeliness)ofthegrievance. IftheCollegehadraisedachallengetoa"uniongrievance",theunionoran affectedemployeemighthavefiledanewgrievanceoradifferentkindof grievanceorsoughtsomeotherlegalmeanstoresolvetherealdispute.Orthe unionmayhaveconcededthepointandwithdrawntheinstantreferral.We declinetospeculate.Itsufficestosaythat,inourview,inthecircumstancesof thiscase,theCollegehaswaivedwhateverrightitmayhavehadtocomplain abouttheformofthegrievance. InReKaufmanFootwearandU.R.,Local88[1996]O.L.A.A.No.611 (Burkett),theunionfiledagrievanceatstep3claimingthatthecompanyhadbreached thecollectiveagreementwhenitbypassedaseniorqualifiedemployeeforaposted vacancy,inthatcase,therelevantarticleofthecollectiveagreementprovidedthata grievancearisingdirectlybetweenthecompanyandtheunionwastobefiledatstep3 andthatthearticlecouldnotbeusedforagrievancedirectlyaffectinganemployeeor employeesandtheregulargrievanceprocedurewasnottobebypassed.Thecompany didnotraiseanobjectiontotheuniongrievanceuntilafterthegrievancehadbeen referredtoarbitrationandthepartieshadmetwithagrievancesettlementofficer.In thesecircumstances,ArbitratorBurkettfoundthatbytakingfreshsteps,thecompany hadwaiveditsrighttoobjecttotheprocedurethatwasfollowedand,accordingly,could notseektobarahearingonthemerits. 2O AsimilarconclusionwasreachedinZellersInc.v.UnitedFoodand CommercialWorkersIntemationalUnion,Local175[2005]O.L.A.A.No.95(Marcotte) andHamiltonHealthSciencesandOntadoPublicServiceEmployees'Union,Local273 September28,2011(Briggs(unreported)),whichwerealsoreliedonbytheUnion.In eachcase,thecollectiveagreementprovidedthatapolicygrievancecouldnotbefiled withrespecttoamatterdirectlyaffectinganemployeeandtheregulargrievance procedurewasnottobebypassed.Basedonthisprovision,anobjectionwasraisedby theemployertoapolicygrievancefiledby.theunionand,afterreviewinganumberof decisions,ArbitratorsMarcetteandBriggsconcludedthattheobjectionconcerneda proceduraldefect.Astheobjectionwasnotraisedinatimelymanner,itwasfoundto havebeenwaived. Inthiscase,thegrievancewasfiledbytheUnioninthespringof2008and theCollegeraisedapreliminaryobjectiontoarbitrabilityinDecember,20!3onthebasis thatthegrievanceinvolvesamatterinrespectofwhichanindividualemployeewas entitledtogrieve,Evenifthatwerethecase,itistheBoard'sviewthattheCollege's objectionrelatestotheformofthegrievanceand,inthisrespect,isproceduralisnature. Accordingly,havingnotrai'sedtheobjectioninatimelymanner,wefindthattheCollege haswaiveditsrighttodoso.Inreachingthisconclusion,wenotethatwhilethereis somedifferenceofopinionamongArbitratorsandBoardsofArbitrationregardingthe appropriatecharacterizationoftheobjectionthatwasraisedinthiscase,inourview,the awardsreliedonbytheUnionaretobepreferredtothosereliedonbytheCollege. 21 Asnotedpreviously,thegrievanceconcernsMs.Lee'sexclusionfromthe bargainingunitanditwasnotsuggestedthatsuchanissueisbeyondthescopeofthe collectiveagreementorthejurisdictionofaBoardofArbitration.Instead,theCollege contendedthattheissueinvolvesamatterinrespectofwhichanindividualemployeeis entitledtogrieveand,forthisreason,isnotthepropersubjectofauniongrievance.In supportofthissubmission,theCollegereliedonArUcle18.3.3ofthecollective agreementandweagreewiththeCollegethatthepartiescanlimitthescopeofaunion grievanceastheyhavedoneinthatArticle.Acoordingly,itisopentoacollegetoraisea timelyobjectiontoauniongrievanceandseektohavethegrievancedismissedas inarbitrablewherethecriteriasetoutinArticle18.3.3havenotbeenmet. However,inthiscase,theCollegedidnotraiseitsobjectioninatimely mannerandthefactthatthepartieshaveagreedtodistinctproceduresforunionand individualgrievancesdoesnotalterthenatureofthatobjection.Itisanobjection relatingtotheformofthegrievance.Inourview,thisisaproceduralmatterandnota mattergoingtotheBoard'sfundamentaljurisdiction.Accordingly,asthegrievancewas filedinMarch,2008andtheCollegefirstraisedanobjectiontothegrievancein December,2013,wefindthatitwaiveditsrighttodoso. 22 Thehearingshallbereconvenedtodealwiththemeritsofthegrievance andweshallremainseizedpendingfinaldispositionofthegrievance. DATEDATTORONTO,this29hdayofApril,2014, Chair SeeDissentAttached CollegeNominee "SherrilMurray" UnionNominee DISSENT IhavenowhadanopportunitytoreviewthereasonsofthemajorityoftheBoardand mustrespectfullydissent. Wearedealingherewithgrievancesfiledunderthesupportstaffcollectiveagreement. Thelanguageofart.18.3.3hasbeenpresentinitsexistingformformanyyearsandthat languagehasbeenthesubjectmatterofconsiderationbymanyarbitratorsoveragreat manyyears. Thelanguageofart.18.3.3isclearandunequivocalinstatingthattheunionmaynot grieveamatteruponwhichanindividualmaygrieveunlessthreespecificconditionsare met.Theunioninthiscasemadenoefforttoarguebeforeusthatthethreeconditions weremetonthefactsofthiscase. Thelanguageofart.18.3.3ismandatoryinasmuchasilstatesthatauniongrievance "shallnotincludeanymaileruponwhichanemployeeispersonallyentitledtogrieve andtheregulargrievanceprocedureforagrievanceparticulartoanemployeeshallnot bebypassed"(emphasisadded),exceptwheretheunionmeetsthethreeconditionsset outthereafter. CouldanIndividualGrievancebeFiled: ThereissubstantialcaseIvindicatingthatwhereanemployeeisinapositiontoclaim thebenefitsofacollectiveagreement,theyareentitledtofileagrievance,whetheror notatthetimethegrievanceisfiledtheirstatusasabargainingunitmemberhasbeen established.AsstatedbyProfessorSchiffinaHumberCollegandO.P.S.E.U. November1997(unreported)p.1: Undertheawardsaclaimtocomeundertheumbrellaofaparticularcollective agreementisarbitrableevenwhenmadebysomeonetheemployersaysis outsideanyagreement:iftheclaimisright,thegrievorshouldhavebeenunder theumbrelladespitewhattheemployersaidanddid. SeealsoRe:UnitedAutomobileWorkers,Local1535andNorthernElectricCo.Ltd. (1972)24L.A.C.235,Weatherillpara.8-9;Re:NewFlyerlndustfiesLtd.(1998)77 L.A.C.(4th)343,Peltzparas.9-18andCanadoreCoUegeandO.P.S.E.U,January2014 Leighton(unreported)atp.8-9. JurisdictionandWaiver: Giventhatanindividualgrievance.couldhavebeenfiled,thecentralissuetobe determinedbythisBoardiswhethertheCollegehaswaiveditsrighttorelyonthestrict termsofart.18.3.3.TheCollegetookthepositionthatthepartieshadturnedtheir mindstowhetherauniongrievancecouldbefiledincircumstanceswhereanindividual couldgrieveandtherebylimitedtheBoard'sjurisdictiontohearagrievance.Itwas arguedthatthiswasamatteroffundamentaljurisdictionandthereforecouldnotbe waived. Thisissuemustbeconsideredinlightoftheprovisionsofart.18.6.6ofthecollective agreementwhichprovided: TheArbitrationBoardshallnotbeauthorizedtoalter,modifyoramendanypart ofthetermsofthisagreementnormakeanydecisioninconsistenttherewithnor dealwithanymatterthatisnotapropersubiectmatterforgrievanceunderthis agreement.(emphasisadded) Itistritelawtosaythatarbitratorsdrawtheirjurisdictionfromthecollectiveagreement betweenthepartiesandinsomeinstancesfromstatute.TheCollegesCollective BargainingAct(CCBA)doesnotaddresstheissueofourjurisdictiontoarbitratethis uniongrievance,Itisalsoclearthatarbitratorsmaynotgivethemselvesjurisdictionover matterswhichthepartieshavespecificallyexcludedfromthearbitrator'sauthority. Inmyview,itcannotbedoubtedthatart.18.3.3specificallyexcludesthisBoardfrom hearingamatteronwhichanindividualcouldgrieveand,pursuanttoart.18.6.6,the partieshaveclearlyindicatedthataBoardofArbitrationmaynotdealwithcertainsubjectmatters includingamatterwhichtheunionisnotentitledtogrievei.e.amatter whichisnotapropersubjectmatterforauniongrievanceunderthiscollective agreement.Thesubjectmatterofinclusionunderthetermsofthisagreementisa matteronwhichMs.Leecouldfileagrievancei.e.claimingtherightsandprivileges whichflowfromthisagreement.Wethereforehavenojurisdictiontohearaunion grievanceaboutthissubjectmatter.Art.18.6.6oustsourjurisdictiontodosoandthisis amatteroffundamentaljurisdiction. Predecessoracademiccollectiveagreementsbetweenthesamepartieshavecontained identicallanguage(variouslyart.32.09and32.10)tothatfoundinlanguageof18.3.3.It haslongbeenheldthattheeffectofart.32.09/32.10istoplace"strictlimitsonthe circumstancesunderwhichtheunionmaygrieveamatterwhichcouldhavebeenthe subjectmatterofanindividualgrievance"withtheresultthattheBoardhasno jurisdictiontohearagrievanceimproperlyfiledasaUniongrievance.Ithasbeen recognizedthatBoardsofArbitrationareboundbythetermsofthecollective agreementandassuchmustfindsuchgrievancestobeinarbitrable.SeeGeorge BrownCollegeandO.P.S.E.U.June1994Devlinatpp.5and7(unreported).Similar conclusionsmaybefoundinDurhamCollegeandO.P.S.E.U,November2012Knopf (unreported)pp.7-8;St.LawrenceCollegeandO.P.S.E.U.April2012Leighton(unreported)pp.6and10;SLLawrenceCollegeandO.P.S.E.U.November2011Starkman(unreported)atpp.7-8;FanshaweCollegeandO.P.S.E.U.December2007 Knopf(unreported)pp.12-14and16;CambrianCollegeandO.P.S.E.U.September 2002Brown(unreported)p.16;FanshaweCollegeandO.P.S.E.U.February1989 Brent(unreported)pp,10-t2;HumberCollegeandO.P,S.E.U.November1997Schiff (unreported)pp.1-2;FanshaweCollegeandO.P.S.E.U.December1982Bastedo(unreported)pp.6-7;CanadoreCollegeandO.P.S.E.U.January2014supra,atp.9. 2 Similarlanguagetothatfoundinart18.3.3wasalsofoundinUniversityof14festem OntarioandUniversityofWesternOntarioStaff.Assn.[2002]O.L.A.A.No.979,Davie. AfterreviewingthelanguageofthecollectiveagreementandtheimpactoftheLabour RelationsAct,1995,S.O.1995,c.1,theArbitratorconcluded,atpara.58: IhaveconcludedthattheEmployer'spreliminaryobjectionmustprevail.InArticle 8.09(a)thepartiestothiscollectiveagreementhavesetexpresslimitsonthe kindsofmatterswhichmayforthesubjectmatterofapolicygrievance.The parties,tothecollectiveagreementinclear,specificandmandatorylanguage haveagreedthattheUnionisprecludedfromfilingagrievanceinrespectofany matteruponwhichanemployeewouldbepersonallyentitledtogrieve. (emphasisadded) Sheheldthatgiventhatthesubjectmatterofthegrievancewasamatteronwhichan individualcouldgrieve,shewaswithoutjurisdictiontoarbitratethegrievance(atpara. 61). InTheGoverningCounciloftheUniversityofTorontoandC.U.P.E.,Local3902,[2009] O.L.A.A.No.126Leighton(atpara.12)theArbitratornotedthatthepartieshad negotiatedexplicittermsthatlimitedtheUnion'srighttofileapolicygrievanceand thereforewhereanindividualcouldgrieve,theUnioncouldnot.Shewenton(atparas. 17-18)todealwiththeissueofwaiver.TheUnioninthatcasearguedthattheemployer hadwaiveditsrighttorelyonthestrictlanguageofthecollectiveagreementbynot raisingthematteruntilthehearing.Atparas.1I-20,sheheld: Itiswell-establishedlawthatjurisdictioncannotbewaived.InTorontoDistrict SchoolBoard,supra,ArbitratorSchiffsaidindecidingtheissuewhetherthe Unionshouldhavefiledanindividualgrievanceinsteadofapolicygrievance,that thedefectwasnotmerelyprocedural. ButanobjectiontoaUnionbringingagrievanceanindividualemployee mighthavebroughtunderadifferentcollectiveagreementprovisionisa challengetojurisdiction.ThatistheresultofSudburyMine,Mill&Smelter Workersandlnt'lNickelCo.(1962),35D.L.R.(2d)371,intheCourtof AppealforOntarioandaccordingtotheopinionofmanyarbitrators,a jurisdictionalobjectioncannotbewaived,(atpara.15) 1ampersuadedthattheobjectionisnotmerelyproceduralinth!scaehe languageofthiscollectiveagreementspecificallyouststherighttofileapolicygrievance ifanindividualcouldgrieve.Giventheobjectiongoestojurisdictionit cannotbewaived. ...thecaselawisconsistentthatifthepartiesagreetolimithowandwhenpolicy grievancesareforwardedtoarbitration,thentheyareboundbytheclear languagetheynegotiated. 3 ...Imustconcludethatthisgrievanceshouldnothavebeenfiledasapolicy grievanceandthatIhavenojurisdictiontohearit. ThemajoritypointsoutthattheInt'lNickelcasewasdistinguishablehoweverIdonot acceptthatthiserroraloneunderminesthepersuasiveforceofthebalanceofthecase law,particularlyinviewofthelanguagetoart.18.6.6.Similarly,therearedistinguishing factorsinmostofthecaselawreliedonbytheUnionsuchaswherethelanguageof thecollectiveagreementinissuedidnotclearlyestablishtwodifferentandmutually exclusiveprocessesforgrievancesasinFraserValleyChildDevelopmentCentreand HealthSciencesAssociation(1996)54L.A.C.(4)11tMunroe.InReKaUfman FoolwearandU,R.,Local88[1996]O.L,A.A.No.611Burkettwherethecollective agreementdidnotgosofarastosetoutspecificconditionswhichmustbemetbefore theunionou!dgrievethematter;theindjvidua!wasbythenoutoftimetofileatimely grievanceandthereIsnoreferencetolimitationssuchasarefoundinart,t8.6.6.Inthe O.P,S.E.U.andSenecaCollegedecisionOctober1998MacDowell(unreported)the circumstancesweresuchthatnoindividualcouldgrieve(seep.16)basedonthe languageoftheagreementthereforetheUnionwasentitledtofileagrievanceandthe Board'scommentsonwaiverwerethereforeobiter(seepage28).Inaddition,that Boarddidnotdealsquarelywiththeissueofwhethertheissuewasjurisdictionalor merelyproceduralnordiditaddresstheexplicitlanguagesurroundingtheBoard's authoritynowfoundinart.18.6.6.InReOil,Chemical&AtomicWorkers,Local9-593 andBritishAmericanOilCo.Ltd.(1965)15L.A.C.408Lane,thelanguageofthe collectiveagreementwasnotexpresslymandatorynorclearinestablishingtwo mutuallyexclusiveprocesses.ItremainsmyviewthatthecasesreliedonbytheUnion areeitherdistinguishableorwronglydecided. Alternatively,intheFanshaweCollege(2007)supraatp.12,itwasheldthatthe questionofarbitrabilitywasafundamentalquestionofjurisdictionandassuchcouldnot bewaived.SimilarlyinCambrianCollege(2002)supraatp.6itwasheldthatthiswasa fundamentalissuegoingtojurisdictionwhichcouldnotbewaivedandarbitratorBrown commented"TheBoardcannotcreatejurisdictionforitself." Acomprehensiveanalysisofthecaselawontheimpactoflanguagesimilartothat foundinart.18.3.3andtheissueofwaiverisfoundinArbitratorLuborsky'sdecisionin St.ClairCatholicDistrictSchoolBoardandOntarioEnglishCatholicTeachers'Assn. (St.Clai$econdaryUnit)[2011]O.L.A.A.No.63.Inthiscase,theemployerdidnotraiseanobjectiontotherightoftheUniontofileagrievanceunti!severalmonthsafter thematterhadbeenreferredtoarbitration.ArbitratorLuborskyconsideredmanyofthe casesrelieduponbythepartiesinthiscase.Heconcluded(atpara.40-4t): WhiletheWeatherilldecision(YorkGearsLtd(1968),19L,A.C.252)ishardtoassess because of the absence of any reference to the precise language in the policyandindividualgrievanceprovisionsofthecollectiveagreementunderconsideration,totheextentthetwoforegoingawardsaredifficulttoreconcile becauseofdifferentconclusionsontheeffectofthespecificcontractlanguagein 4 issue,theydonotseem"opaque"inthesensethattheybothidentifyfromavery earlypointinthedevelopmentofthearbitraljurisprudenceaclearanalytical distinctionbeingdrawnbetween"afundamentalobjectiontojurisdiction"based onrelevantcontractlanguagewhichmayberaisedatanytimeandisnot capableofbeing"waived"bymanagement,andapatentproceduraldefectthat maybesubjecttowaiverbytheconductoftheemployerinprocessingthe grievancethroughthegrievanceprocedurewithoutraisingatimelyobjection. ThisanalyticaldistinctionisaffirmedinthemorerecentdecisionsofReToronto DistrictSchoolBoarcLSupra,ReUniversityofWesternOntario,supra,Fishercast No.1,supra,FishercastNo.2,supraandUniversityofToronto,suprathatarethe closesttothefactualcircumstancesbeforeme.Ineachcasethecollective agreementestablishedmutuallyexclusivepathwaysfortheprocessingof grievances;onebywayofanindividualemployee'srighttogrieve;andtheother idea!ifyingtherightofthebargainingagenttofi!eapc!icygrievancein iircumstanceswhereanindividualemployeecouldnototherwisegrieve.The casessupporttheconclusionthatundersuchlarlguagetheformofthegrievance isajurisdictionalmatterthatcannotbewaivedbYmanagementprocessingthe grievanceorfailingtoraiseanobjectionatanearlyopportunity,resultinginthe dismissalofthegrievanceforwantofjurisdictionwhenthewrongformof grievanceisused. Hecontinued(atparas45-46): ...Article39.03,Step3(g),whichstatesinrelevantpartthat,"Apolicygrievance shallnotbefiledwherethesubjectmatterofthegrievancecouldhavebeenfiled asanindividualgrievance",establishesaseparateprocedureforprocessing policydisputesasdistinctfromindividualgrievancesthatisasubstantive distinctiongoingtothefundamentaljurisdictionofthearbitratortoconsidereach formofgrievance.Theparties'righttonegotiateseparatepathwaysfordifferent categoriesofgrievancesdoesnotoffendtheirstatutoryobligationsunder subsections48(1)and(2)oftheLRAtoensurethatalldifferencesmaybedealt withatbindingarbitration. Assuch,applyingthelonglineofarbitralopinionreviewedabovefromJudge LaneandArbitratorWeatherilltothemorerecentdecisionsofArbitratorsBeck, Davie,RandallandLeightonthat"afundamentalobjectiontojurisdiction"maybe raisedatanytimeandisnotcapableofbeing'%,aived"bymanagement's processingofthegrievance,IconcludetheBoard'sparticipationinthegrievan(;e procedureinthepresentcaseandfailuretobringthisobjectiontotheattentionof theAssociation...didnotwaiveitsobjectiontomyauthoritytohearthepolicy grievance.Consequently,theAssociation'ssubmissionthattheBoardwaived whatisonlyaproceduraldefectcannotbesustained. 5 Inviewoftheforegoingandinparticularthefactthatthesepartiesexpresslyand unequivocallydeterminedthatboardsofarbitrationarenotentitledto"dealwithany matterthatisnotapropersubjectmatterforgrievanceunderthisAgreement',I concludethatwehavenojurisdictiontohearthismatterandthatthisisnotmerelya proceduraldefectbutratherafundamentalissueofjurisdictionthatcannotbewaived. ItisalsoimportanttorecognizethattheUnionhereisnotwithoutremedywhereit believesthatanindividualemployeeshouldbeincludedinthebargainingunitandthe employeeinissuefailstogrievetheirstatus.AswasacknowledgedbytheUnionin argument,itisalwaysopentothemtoraisethematterattheOntarioLabourRelations Board(OLRB).Indeed,inthecourseofapreviouscarethisBoardruledthatwedidnot havejurisdictiontodeterminethescopeofthebargainingunitbasedonSchedule1 s,5(f)oftheCCBAandthatonlytheOLRBcouldmakesucharuling. AstotheMemorandumofAgreemententeredintowhenthesematterswerebeforea Boarddifferentlyconstituted,Ibelievethepartieswouldbothagreethatithasbeen morehonouredinthebreachthantheobservance.HamletAct1,Scene4. April14,2014 AnnE.Burke 6 CHAIR'SADDENDUM HavingreadMs.Burke'sdissent,thereareanumberofpointstowhichI mustrespond. (1)Onpage2ofherdissent,Ms.Burkereferstoalonglistofawardsinwhichunion grievanceswerefoundtobeinarbitrableunderaprovisionoftheacademic collectiveagreementcontaininglanguagewhichisidenticaltothelanguageof Article18.3.3ofthesupportstaffagreement.Inonlytwoofthoseawardsdidthe Boardspecificallyconsiderwhetherthecollege'sobjectionconcerneda fundamentalissueofjurisdictionorwhetheritwasproceduralinnatureandcould bewaived:seeCambrianCollegeandOntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion September11,2002(Brown(unreported))andFanshaweCollegeandOPSEU December10,2007(Knopf(unreported)).Thatistheissuetobedecidedinthis case, (2)Onpage3ofherdissent,Ms.BurkereferstoanawardofArbitratorDavteinthe UniversityofWesternOntarioandUniversityofWesternOntarioStaff Association[2002]O.L.A.A.No.979.Thatawardwasalsoreferredtoby ArbitratorLuborskyinSLClairCatholicDistrictSchoolBoardv.OntarioEnglish CatholicTeachers'Assn.(St.ClairSecondaryUnit)[2011]O.L.A.A.No.63. 2 AsMs.BurkenotesintheUniversityofWesternOntaffocase,ArbitratorDavie upheldtheemployer'sobjectiontoapolicygrievancefiledbytheuniononthe basisthatthecollectiveagreementprecludedtheunionfromfilingagrievance onanymatterinrespectofwhichanindividualemployeewasentitledtogrieve. Inote,however,thatArbitratorDaviedidnotdecidewhethertheemployer's objectionwasonegoingtoherjurisdiciionofwhetheritwasmerelyproceduralin nature.Inthisregard,shecommentedasfollows: Ifindthatinthecircumstancesofthiscaseitisimmaterialwhetherone characterizestheobjectiontothegrievanceasonewhichismerely proceduraloronewhichgoestomyjurisdiction.Iftheobjectionis characterizedasmerelyprocedural,theEmployerherehasnotwaivedits rights.Immediatelyfollowingthefilingofthegrievance,UWOnotedits objectionandagreedtoextendthetimelimitsforthefilingofindividual grievances.WhentheUnionindicateditwishedtoproceedwithitspolicy grievance,theEmployeragainconfirmeditspositionthatthiswasnota properpolicygrievance,andagainagreedtoextendthetimelimitsforthe filingofgrievances.Iftheobjectionischaracterizedasajurisdictional objection(asUWOcounselasdone)itcannotbewaived. Intheresult,ArbitratorDaviedidnotdecidetheissuethatisbeforethisBoard. (3)WhilemanyoftheawardsreliedonbytheUnionmaynothavecontained languageidenticaltothelanguageofArticle18.3.3ofthesupportstaffcollective agreement,theycontainedseparateproceduresforunionpolicygrievancesand individualgrievances.Insomecases,thelanguageoftherelevantprovisionwas substantiallysimilartothelanguagecontainedintheUniversityofWestern Ontariocase. (4) 3 AlthoughMs.BurkealsosuggeststhattheBoardinTheOntarioPublicService EmployeesUnion,Local560andSenecaCollegeofAppliedArtsand TechnologyOctober29,1998(MacDowell)unreported))didnotdealwith whethertheissuewasjurisdictionalormerelyprocedural,themajorityofthe Boarddescribedthecollege'sobjectionasonerelatingtotheformofthe grievance.Asthecollegedidnotraisetheobjectioninatimelymanner,the majorityfoundthatithadwaiveditsrighttodoso.Moreover,regardlessofhow thecommentsofthemajorityarecharactedzed,Ifindthemtobepersuasive. DATEDATTORONTO,this29thdayofApril,2014. Chair