Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEdwards 14-11-17IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION (ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES) (OPSEU) Grievance of Edwards, Local 417 (Grievance No. 2012-0417-0005) ( the "Union") -and- COLLEGE EMPLOYER COUNCIL FOR THE COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY (ST. LAWRENCE COLLEGE) (the "employer") Jules B. Bloch Arbitrator Sherril Murray Union Nominee Ron Pearson Employer Nominee Appearances: Union: Adrienne Lei, Counsel; West Edwards, Grievor; Gillian Axten, Chief Steward; Graeme Aubert, Local President. Employer: Dan Michaluk, Counsel; Elizabeth Winter, Student at law; Jim Gibson, Associate Director Labour Relations; Robin Tippett, Labour Relations Officer; Dan Young, Dean, Applied Science and Technology; Shannon Clagett, Associate Dean Applied Science and Computing. Hearing Dates: September 23, 2013, August 20, 2014, August 26,2014 In The Matter of an Arbitration AWARD 1. The grievor, West Edwards, has been employed in the position of Professor of Civil Engineering Technology program at St. Lawrence College since August 2007. On January 29, 2013 the grievor filed the instant grievance. The parties agree that this is a continuing grievance. 2. The grievor has been described as an excellent professor. The issue before the panel is not his ability but rather his initial placement on the salary grid. The union asserts that the college failed to "make a fair assessment" of his relevant occupational experience, "in a field of work related to the material taught or the job to be done, or to some allied aspect of it," 3. The relevant clauses of the collective agreement are set out below: Article 6 MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS 6.01 It is the exclusive function of the Colleges to (i) maintain order, discipline and efficiency; (ii) hire, discharge, transfer, classify, assign, appoint, promote, demote, lay off, recall and suspend or otherwise discipline employees subject to the right to lodge a grievance in the manner and to the extent provided in this Agreement; (iii) manage the College and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the right to plan, direct and control operations, facilities, programs, courses, systems and procedures, direct its personnel, determine complement, organization, methods and the number, location and classification of personnel required from time to time, the number and location of campuses and facilities, services to be performed, the scheduling of assignments and work, the extension, limitation, curtailment, or cessation of operations and all other rights and responsibilities not specifically modified elsewhere in this Agreement. 6.02 The Colleges agree that these functions will be exercised in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Agreement. Article 14 SALARIES 14.01 A Determination of starting salaries and progression within the salary schedules shall be in accordance with the Job Classification Plans (see pages 114-119). The application to certain present employees above the maximum step on the salary schedule shall continue as set out in 14.03. 1 COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY 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 A) Experience: Relevant Teaching/Relevant Occupational Relevant occupational experience generally means full years of experience in a field of work related to the material to be taught or the job to be done, or to some allied aspect of it. In determining the number of years to be counted, the College hiring must avoid the extremes of counting either "years of time passed" or "years of entirely non -repetitive experience", and must make a fair assessment of an applicant's experience. For example, an applicant who had spent some years as a sales clerk before qualifying as an engineer should not expect that sales experience to count as relevant experience if the person is being hired to teach engineering. Part-time experience should be totalled only if it forms part of a regular program of development such as a co-operative educational program. Double counting must be avoided. For example, if an applicant worked as a graduate assistant while pursuing an advanced degree, the person shall not be given full credit for both experience and educational time. Similarly, relevant teaching experience means full years of teaching experience at a level comparable with the level required of the applicant. Again, double counting must be avoided for teaching experience as, for example, a graduate assistant while pursuing advanced qualifications. The values to be given for experience are - First 5 years: 1 point per year - Next 9 years: 2/3 point per year - Next 12 years: 1/2 point per year 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 2 a diploma, professional accreditation or degree, are recognized. For example, a graduate of a three-year technology program in a College would be given 112 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 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: (Maximum of 4 years) 112 points - University Degree - per year (level) completed: (Maximum of 6 years) 112 points - Formal integrated work/study program such as P.Eng., C.A., C.G.A., C.M.A. (formerly R.I.A.), Certified Journeyman` - per year (level) completed: (Maximum of 5 years) 112 points (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 8 points based upon the appointment factors. Since this is the minimum requirement, a total of 8 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 - 8. The product is rounded to the next higher number, e.g. A = 8 points B = 412 points A + B = 1212 points 1212 - 8 = 4W = 5 The starting position is the corresponding step (Step 5) on the scale. 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 (c) 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. Step Value A) Experience - to control point 1 step per year B) Performance - above control point where 1 step per year performance satisfactory 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 program but the salary as established by the plan is inadequate, the College may grant up to three additional steps on appointment provided the resultant rate does not place the individual above the maximum salary. The only issue in dispute is the grievor's experience rating. The college is charged with making a fair assessment of an applicant's experience. The test contemplates looking at the value of the experience and assigning it an experiential rating described in years. 5. The college assessed Mr. Edwards factors as set out below and found that he should be placed at step 5: Factor 1 step for each completed year at the post- Relevant formal qualifications secondary level - on the basis of the Relevant experience explanatory notes set out in Section B of C) Further Formal the Appointment Factors on page 115. Education - where prior approval given by the Note: No credit will be given where to do so College 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 program but the salary as established by the plan is inadequate, the College may grant up to three additional steps on appointment provided the resultant rate does not place the individual above the maximum salary. The only issue in dispute is the grievor's experience rating. The college is charged with making a fair assessment of an applicant's experience. The test contemplates looking at the value of the experience and assigning it an experiential rating described in years. 5. The college assessed Mr. Edwards factors as set out below and found that he should be placed at step 5: Factor Collage's Assessment Relevant formal qualifications 5 years x 1.5 =7.5 Relevant experience 3 years x 1 = 3.0 Salary Calculation (7.5 +3.0) — 8.0 = 2.5 6. The union assesses Mr. Edwards factors as set out below and asserts he should be at step 7: 8 Factor Union's position Relevant formal qualifications 5 years x 1.5=7.5 Relevant experience 5 years x 1 + 3 years 2/3 = 7 Salary Calculation (7.5 + 7) -8 = 6.5 7. 1 have reviewed all the evidence and submissions of the parties. I have not replicated all the arguments but rather have come to my decision based on the submissions and evidence placed before me. 8. The College does not give any credit for Mr. Edward's relevant experience during the eight-year period between 1988 and 1996 when the grievor was working in the construction industry for Good Neighbour Fencing. 9. The union assigns an extra five years of relevant experience to Mr. Edwards's salary grid calculation. The union asserts that a 50% relevant experience reduction is appropriate for the ten-year period of seasonal construction work, between the years1986 and 1996 and 1999 and 2000. The union asserts that all ten years count for the purpose of relevant experience. 10. The evidence of Don Young, the Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science, is clear and cogent. The college was unable to attract engineering graduates with the requisite experience to apply for the teaching position. Even though Mr. Edwards did not have the appropriate work experience to apply for the position, the college entertained his application and he became the successful applicant. In awarding Mr. Edwards the job, Mr. Young did not give any relevant experience credit for Mr. Edwards' work experience during the period between 1986 and 1996. 11. Mr. Edwards has a Civil Engineering BA. SC from Queen's University (2003). As well, Mr. West graduated from St. Lawrence College with a Civil Engineering Technology Diploma (1999). The work performed by Mr. West at Cruickshank Construction Ltd. was performed while he was studying in the St. Lawrence College diploma program and in the Queen's engineering program. I find, based on the submissions' of the parties and in particular on the documentary evidence provided by Cruickshank Construction Ltd, that Cruickshank Construction Ltd., between July 3, 1999 and September 9, 2000, employed Mr. West. This work experience is adequately memorialized in the relevant formal qualifications criteria. I note that the college attributed an extra year in that factor. I accept the college's explanation for that extra year of credit. 12. There is no doubt that the experience gained during his eight year period between 1988 and 1996 working for a local fencing contractor must be given some weight. There is also no doubt that the College failed to give any weight for this relevant experience. I accept that the work performed at Good Neighbour Fencing is relevant to Mr. Edwards teaching in the Civil Engineering Technology Program. Familiarity with construction processes, construction material, preparing tenders and running a crew is a relevant experience. 13. Further, I accept Mr. Edwards's testimony that he acquired practical and 5 technical skills in autocad and technical drawing, construction management and quality control, construction materials and GIS and facility and asset management from his experience at Good Neighbour Fencing. 14. 1 accept the union's position that a 50% discount is appropriate for seasonal work. On that basis, eight years of seasonal work would translate into four years of experience for the purpose of the salary grid, however that is not the only discount that must be accounted for. 15. The tasks in question are the same tasks that would be performed year over year. When looking at the quality and quantity of the work in question, I note that Mr. Edwards' experience over that eight-year period is focused in one company and in one small portion of the residential sector of the construction industry. An additional discount of experience must be applied for the limited range of work associated with a fencing company. Mr. Edwards would have become proficient at all his tasks in short order. 16. In paragraph 14 1 accepted the union's position of a 50% discount for seasonal work. That discount did not take into account the limited breadth and the repetitive nature of the tasks performed. The four years work experience referred to in paragraph 14 should be discounted by another 50% because of the limited breadth of work and the repetitive nature of the tasks. I find that the appropriate relevant experience factor to be applied to Mr. Edwards relevant experience factor is two years. 17. 1 find that the grievor is appropriately placed on the salary grid at step 5. Factor The finding Relevant formal qualifications 5 years x 1.5 =7.5 Relevant experience 5 years x 1 = 5.0 Salary Calculation (7.5 +5.0) — 8.0 = 4.5 18. Having reviewed all the submissions of the parties and having come to the conclusion that the grievor was properly placed on the salary grid at step 5, this grievance is dismissed. I Dated in Toronto this 17th Day of November 2014 Jules B. loch Arbitrator I concur: "Ron Pearson" Ron Pearson Employer Nominee I dissent: "Sherril Murray" Sherril Murray Union Nominee 7