HomeMy WebLinkAboutZweirs et al 14-10-27IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (the Union)
And
DURHAM COLLEGE ( the College)
RE: workload grievances of Nicole Zweirs, Peter Hupka and Charien Di Danielli
Appearing for the Union: Debbie Rautins - Local President
Nicole Zweirs, Peter Hupka, Charlene Di Danielli --grievors
Appearing for the College: Stephanie Ball — Dean, School of Justice
Kevin Baker —Dean, Interdisciplinary Studies
Judy Spring — Co -Chair, WMG
Sandra Bennett-- Director, Human Resources
Sole Arbitrator: Norm Jesin
Hearing held; October 14, 2014
AWARD:
This arbitration deals with a claim by a number of professors that their SWF forms should be
amended to include time spent attending open houses held by the College. The facts giving rise to the
dispute are as follows:
The College holds two open houses during the academic year. The purpose of the open houses
are to provide information to the public and to secondary school students who may be consider
attending the College after completing their secondary education. The open houses are used, at least in
part, as a recruitment tool. The open houses are held once during each of the fall and winter semesters
and are held on weekends.
Professors are invited to volunteer to attend at the open houses, to make presentation to
prospective students, and/or to informally provide information to students about the various programs.
When a professor volunteers to attend the open house he/she may spend some time in preparation for
the presentation of information at the open house. The College has never added time spent for the
open house on the SWF although it has until recently, offered lieu time to professors who volunteered
to attend. The practice of offering lieu time was recently stopped at the insistence of the Union.
The College presented evidence that if there are insufficient volunteers from amongst the
teaching staff, it will solicit student volunteers to provide information at the open house. It also
conceded that there had previously been some practice of paying part-time teachers who attended but
that is no longer the case. Finally, the Union presented evidence of two professors who have had a
notation on their SWF reflecting attendance at a CIP program, a forerunner to the open house program.
The College claimed that those examples were anomalies and that it has certainly not been the practice
to note attendance at open house on a SWF.
The Union relies on Article 11.02 A 2, which essentially provides that the SWF includes must
include "all details of total workload". In addition, it relies on Article 11.01 B 1 which provides that total
workload "assigned and attributed" shall not exceed a maximum of 44 hours per week. Finally, it relies
on the decision in Fonshawe College, unreported, October 21, 2003, (P. Knopf, R. J. Gallivan, John
McManus). In that case the College offered professional development training sessions to academic and
support staff. The sessions were presented by professors who volunteered to do so. Initially the college
in that case did not note these sessions on a SWF. During the hearing the college conceded that it would
recognize the presentation at the sessions as a "complementary function" under the terms of the
collective agreement and note them on the SWF accordingly. The Union argued that this was insufficient
and that the presentation should be treated as "teaching contact hours", with additional time attributed
in accordance with the terms of Article 11. The arbitration board accepted the college's position and
treated the presentations as constituting complementary functions.
it is the position of the College in this case that teachers are free to volunteer or not to
volunteer to attend the open house, but attendance is not required or assigned within the meaning of
the collective agreement. Although there was some suggestion from the Union, asserting that teachers
were "pressured" to attend the open house the College stated emphatically that there was no such
pressure placed by the College. The College relied on several arbitration decisions in support of its
submission that in order to be included on the SWF, work must be "assigned" by the College. Work
which is "self assigned" by the teacher, or participation in an event or activity as a volunteer, need not
be included on the SWF. Those cases include: Fanshawe College, unreported, April 30, 1987, (Shime,
Brady, Herbert); La Cite Collegiale, unreported, 1996, (M. G. Picher); Number College, unreported,
January 26, 2004 (M. Nairn); and Seneca College, unreported, October 27, 2006 (McLaren, Davidson,
Podmore).
In Fanshawe, the arbitration board refused to add "self assigned" counselling duties to the SWF.
In both La Cite Collegiale and Number, the arbitrators dismissed claims to add time on the SWF for
voluntary participation on college committees. Finally, in Seneca, the board dismissed a claim to add
time for voluntary participation in a college administered coaching program designed to encourage
student success at the college. In a decision that was unanimous, the board noted at p. 10, that the
teacher was free to volunteer, or not volunteer and could withdraw from the program at any time. The
board further stated that in order to be included on the SWF, work "must be assigned to a teacher by
the College". The board concluded that the coaching activity does not satisfy that requirement. The
claim was therefore dismissed.
The Fanshawe case relied on by the Union is of little assistance as the college in that case agreed
to reflect the work on the SWF. The dispute was not over whether unassigned work should be included
on the SWF, but rather whether the particular work in question should be treated as "Teaching contact
hours" or "complementary functions".
Our cases is more like the cases relied on by the college. The open house activities more closely
resemble the type of volunteer activities which were the subject of those cases. The information
provided by the Union did not establish, in my view, that the College somehow pressured or otherwise
required teachers to volunteer their attendance at the open house. It is therefore my conclusion that as
participation in the open house is not assigned by the College, the College is not obliged to reflect
voluntary participation in the open house on the SWF. The claims are therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 27«' day of October, 2014.
Norm Jesin