HomeMy WebLinkAboutAbedini et al 15-02-25IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ UNION (the Union)
AND
COLLEGE EMPLOYER COUNCIL (the Employer)
RE: GRIEVANCE ARISING FROM THE RETURN TO WORK FROM STRIKE
APPEARING FOR THE UNION: David Wright and Elba Bendo, Ryder Wright Blair and
Holmes LLP
APPEARING FOR THE EMPLOYER: Alan Freedman, Hicks Morley LLP
ARBITRATION BOARD: Norm Jesin, Chair
Pamela Munt-Madill, Union Nominee
Carla Zabek, Employer Nominee
Hearing Dates: April 22, September 29, October 23 and December 2, 2014
PRELIMINARY AWARD:
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This case deals with over 300 grievances. The grievances were filed as a result of issues
arising from the return of employees to work from a three week strike which took place in or
about March, 2006. Essentially the seek compensation for what they assert is an increased
workload following the return from the strike. The Council has raised a preliminary objection to
the grievances on the ground that, according to the Council, the grievances do not raise a prima
facie case that the Colleges have violated the collective agreement. This award deals with the
Council’s preliminary objection. The facts giving rise to the grievances and to the Council’s
objection are set out below:
In or about 2005-6, the parties attempted to negotiate a renewal of their provincial
agreement for academic employees. Negotiations were unsuccessful and as a result the Union
conducted a lawful strike in the spring of 2006. The strike lasted for three weeks when a new
collective agreement was reached effective from 2005 until 2009. In addition to the collective
agreement the parties negotiated a “return to work protocol” setting out the ter ms for the
return of employees to return to work on March 27, 2006. It is that protocol which provides this
board with jurisdiction to determine this matter. The operative provision in the protocol states
that “Faculty grievances relating to workload arising from the return to work shall proceed
directly to the board of arbitration who shall have the powers referenced in Article 32”. Article
32 is the provision setting out the grievance and arbitration procedure in the collective
agreement.
Amongst other provisions, the protocol provides that the period of the work stoppage
shall not be treated has having been worked and that accordingly, the salaries of full time
bargaining unit members were to be reduced by 1/261 of each employee’s annual salary for
each day of the work stoppage. Nevertheless, teachers were expected to complete delivery of
the courses and their course materials for their students. In order to facilitate this, the protocol
contemplates that teachers would not be required to perform work tha t they would otherwise
do during non-teaching periods and that further, there would be a reduction on the time spent
on professional development. Notwithstanding these provisions, employees grieved a number
of situations in seeking additional payments for increased work load because of time spent in
various ways in order to complete the teaching of the courses following the strike.
Article 11 of the collective agreement sets out an elaborate process for determining the
establishment of a professor’s workload in any given semester. The provision establishes a
structure in which time is attributed for various categories of work such as course preparation,
evaluation, out of class assistance and complementary functions. The formula for these
categories is generally dependent on the number of teaching contact hours and/or courses
assigned to a professor in any given semester. In two previous arbitration awards, an
arbitration board appointed pursuant to the protocol determined that the claims for
compensation in these grievances were not limited by the article 11 workload provisions. (The
Colleges Compensation and Appointments Council, unreported, May 23, 2007 and April 23,
2009 (Shime, Burke, Hayes). Those awards were overturned by the Divisional Court in a
decision dated November 8, 2012 on the basis that the Board’s approach was inconsistent with
the collective agreement and unreasonable. The parties were directed to refer the grievances
to a different board of arbitration and as a result, this board was ap pointed to determine these
matters.
THE CLAIMS
In order to manage the litigation of these grievances and the preliminary objections, the
parties agreed to divide all the grievances into six broad categories. Those categories are listed
as follows:
1. Claims for complementary functions that ought to be attributed on an hour -for-hour
basis under Article 11.01 F 1 of the collective agreement.
2. Compensation claimed, in part, based on additional teaching contact hours where
there was no extension of the winter 2006 semester.
3. Compensation claimed due to the extension of the winter 2006 semester and/or loss
of time to perform professional development, complementary functions or other
activities during non-teaching periods.
4. Compensation claimed for course revisions, correspondence with students,
additional preparation, revising evaluation requirements, re-writing tests and
assignments, performing additional evaluations, and condensed marking.
5. Claims of academic counsellors working extra hours.
6. Miscellaneous claims (e. g. recalled employees on professional development leave
enrolled as full-time student, claim for stress, etc.)
In addition to dividing the claims into these categories the parties were able to agree
that we would deal with a limited number of claims in each category of claims as representative
for all the claims in the category. The parties were able to present argument in each category
based on the agreed representative claims for each of those categories.
Taking the lead of the parties we will analyze and determine each category of claims
separately based on the representative claims put forward by the parties.
ARTICLE 11-WORKLOAD
At this point it is appropriate to set out in a general way the manner in which workload
is attributed to an employee under the collective agreement.
Under the collective agreement full time teachers are assigned teaching contact hours.
Additional hours are attributed for various associated functions such as evaluation, preparation,
and out of class assistance. All of these hours are calculated and noted on a form called a SWF.
The actual hours performed may vary week to week but the SWF governs the number of hours
attributed to an employee over the course of a semester. The maximum number of hours for a
full time teacher is 44 hours per week. Any hours on the SWF above that amount attracts
overtime.
This chair has set out the general framework for attribution of hours in a recent
decision in Fanshawe College, unreported, June 5, 2014 as follows:
Article 11.01 of the collective agreement establishes an elaborate and detailed
mechanism for attributing the number of hours that a professor is credited for on a SWF
on a weekly basis in each semester. Article 11.01 B 1 provides as follows:
Total workload assigned and attributed by the College to a teacher shall not
exceed 44 hours in any week for up to 36 weeks in which there are teaching
contact hours for teachers in post -secondary programs and for up to 38 weeks in
which there are teaching contact hours in the case of teachers not in post-
secondary programs.
The balance of the academic year shall be reserved for complementary functions
and professional development.
Workload factors to be considered are:
(i) Teaching contact hours
(ii) Attributed hours for preparation
(iii) Attributed hours for evaluation and feedback
(iv) Attributed hours for complementary functions
The remainder of article 11.01 sets out in some detail the method and formulae
by which hours are attributed for preparation, evaluation and feedback and
complementary functions. In particular, article 11.01 F 1 provides that complementary
functions “appropriate to the role of the teacher may be assigned … Hours for such
functions shall be attributed on an hour for hour basis”. The article further provides for
an allowance for complementary functions of 6 hours on a weekly basis, with four of
those hours allowed “for routine out of class assistance to individual students” and two
of those hours allowed for “normal administrative tasks”.
Article 11.01 G 2 provides for attribution in atyp ical circumstances. It provides:
Where there are atypical circumstances affecting the workload of a teacher or
group of teachers which are not adequately reflected in this Article 11,
Workload, additional hours shall be attributed following discussion bet ween
each teacher individually and the supervisor, on an hour for hour basis.
…
Article 11.03 establishes a ten month academic year from September 1 to June
30. The year is divided into teaching and non -teaching periods. Note that the SWF only
sets out the hours assigned and attributed during the teaching period. A full time
teacher will teach during two semester. A SWF will be completed for each semester. The
periods within the academic year outside the periods described in the SWF’s are
considered as the “non-teaching period”. With respect to that period Article 11.08
provides:
In keeping with the professional responsibility of the teacher, non-teaching
periods are used for activities initiated by the teacher and by the College as part
of the parties’ mutual commitment to professionalism, the quality of education
and professional development.
Such activities will be undertaken by mutual consent and agreement will not be
unreasonably withheld.
No SWF will be issued but such activities may be documented. Where mutually
agreed activities can be appropriately performed outside the Colle ge, scheduling
shall be at the discretion of the teacher, subject to the requirement to meet
appropriate deadlines.
With this general framework in mind we will deal with each of the categories described
above separately.
1. Claims for Complementary Functions
The basis for the claims in this category is that following the end of the strike, teachers were
required to perform additional work not contemplated in the original SWF forms in order to
facilitate completion of the school semester within the time allotted for by the Colleges.
According to the claimants, this work would have resulted in their working more than the
maximum 44 hours in a given week and therefore they should have been entitled to overtime
payments. In this category the Union asserts th at the work claimed by the claimants falls under
the heading of complementary functions and should be attributed on an hour by hour basis in
accordance with article 11.01 F 1. There are four grievances representing the claims in this
category. The grievors are Alan Duschene from Algonquin College, Dianna Buckle from
Fanshawe College, Steve Andrews from Seneca College and Zahir Eisa from Seneca College.
The claims in the grievance pertaining to complementary functions are of two types. The
first type deals with additional meetings that the grievors attended to discuss matters dealing
with the completion of courses following the return to work from the strike. In each case the
grievors were required to attend these meetings following the end of the strike. Th e second
type of claim deals with additional time spent on extra out of class assistance required because
of questions or concerns raised by students arising from the return to work from strike and the
schedule for completing their courses.
As I have already noted, the protocol for the return to work agreed to by the Colleges and
the Union provides that the employees would not be paid for the three weeks of the strike and
that their salaries would be reduced accordingly. In addition, the protocol expressly provides
that “For the purposes of Article 11.01 G 2, the circumstances arising as a result of the work
stoppage are deemed not to be atypical”. In other words , no attribution for any work
performed “as a result of work stoppage” may be made as an atypical circumstance under
article 11.01 G 2.
It is the position of the Employer that work that is claimed by the grievors under this
category is work which falls either under the attributed allowance in article 11.01 F 1 for normal
administrative tasks, in the case of the meetings, or under the attributed allowance for normal
routine tasks in the case of additional out of class assistance. In addition, counsel noted that
two of the grievors, Ms. Buckle and Mr. Eisa, were already attributed more than the minimum 6
hour allowance for complementary functions on their SWF’s. Counsel therefore submitted that
the work claimed may also already be covered by the additional attribution for complementary
hours already provided for on their SWF’s.
Finally, counsel noted that to the extent that the claims are based on extra work arising as a
result of a return to work from the strike, the grievors are essentially raising the strike as an
“atypical circumstance”. As such, any work resulting from the strike should be excluded from
any claim by virtue of the protocol and the Union may not get around the provision of the
protocol by seeking to base the claim under an alternate provision of the collective agreement
– that is 11.01 F 1 rather than 11.01 G 2.
Counsel relied on a number of decisions including Sault College, October 9, 2013,
unreported (Wacyk), and Sault College, September 24, 2014, unreported (Wacyk) in support of
the proposition that complementary functions are only attributed above the minimum
allowances in article 11.01 F 1 in atypical circumstances. Counsel also relied on cases such as
Algonquin College, June 19, 2009, (Stephens) in support of the proposition that meetings with
managers to discuss course work constitutes “normal administrative tasks”.
In response, the Union submits that there is work which is neither routine out of class
assistance or normal administrative tasks but work which must be attributed on an hour by
hour basis under article 11.01 F 1. Counsel submits that such work is not necessarily “atypical”
under article 11.01 G 2 but in any event, if a claim may be made under an alternate provision,
as in this case, than whether or not the basis of the claim is “atypical” is irrelevant and need not
be considered. Counsel submits that the claims in this case are based on complementary
functions which are neither routine out of class assistance or normal administrative tasks and
should therefore be attributed on an hour by hour basis. Counsel further notes that in any
event the attributed hours are merely minimums and where additional complementary
functions are contemplated extra hours will be attributed on the SWF as in the case of Ms.
Buckle and Mr. Eisa. Counsel relied on Algonquin College, February 5, 2002, unreported (O’Neil)
and Algonquin College, January 8, 2002, unreported (Rozenberg) as examples of cases in which
additional hours were attributed for complementary functions without any finding that
additional hours were based on atypical circumstances.
By way of general comment, counsel submitted that the bar for establishing that there is no
prima facie case is a high one and that the motion to dismiss should not be granted on this basis
unless there is no reasonable prospect that the grievances may succeed.
In considering this matter we agree with the proposition asserted by the Employer that the
meetings claimed fall under the heading of normal administrative tasks and that the extra
assistance provided by the grievors falls under the category of routine out of class assistance.
We also agree with the proposition asserted by counsel for the Union that the allowance for
complementary functions set out in Article 11.01 F 1 is a minimum attribution and in
appropriate circumstances, additional hours may be attributed where such attribution is
appropriate. We do not feel that it is necessary for us to determine whether additional
attribution for complementary functions may be made only when atypical circumstances exist.
What we can say, however, is that in this case the strike and the return to work are atypical
circumstances and were treated as such by the parties in the return to work protocol. That is
why they stated expressly that circumstances arising as a result of the work stoppage would be
deemed not to be atypical within the meaning of article 11.01 G 2. The parties were clearly
agreeing that no claim could be made for work falling within article 11.01 G 2. It would make no
sense for the parties to have made that agreement if the Union could turn arou nd and make a
claim for the additional work barred under 11.01 G 2, under the complementary function
provisions in article 11.01 F 1. Although we agree with the Union that the onus for establishing
that no prima facie case exists is a high one, we do not see how the claims put forward by the
Union in this category can have any reasonable chance of success in light of the protocol. We
therefore find that the claims under this category must be dismissed.
2. Claims for Additional Teaching Contact Hours
And
3. Claims for Extra Hours Worked by Academic Counsellors:
The parties dealt with categories 2 and 5 together as the objections for these two
categories have the same basis. We will first use category 2 as an illustration.
In category two, the claim is that professors were required to teach additional contact hours
although the actual semester had not been extended. Both parties agree that if the additional
hours taught resulted in the professor having worked more than the maximum weekly hours
set out in article 11.01 J 2, then the professor is entitled to an overtime payment. The Employer
maintains that the although the grievances claim that additional teaching contact hours were
provided, they do not assert or claim that the additional hours resulted in the gri evors
exceeding the maximum hours set out in the collective agreement.
There are two test grievances in this category, one from Mary Finlay and one from Agnes
Seaton. Each grievance indeed asserts that the grievor seeks compensation for additional
teaching hours provided, but neither grievance claims that any of the additional hours provided
exceeded the weekly maximums set out in the collective agreement.
The grievances in category 5 raise a similar problem for academic counsellors. The weekly
maximum allowed for counsellors is 35 hours. The test grievance in that category, filed by Jerry
Nugent, seeks “overtime pay” for additional work performed, but does not expressly state that
the weekly maximum hours were exceeded.
In both categories the Employer asserts that even if the work performed was greater than
the weekly maximums, the grievances would only succeed if the additional work was
authorized by the Employer. The parties have agreed that the issue of whether the additional
work must be authorized may be deferred to a determination of the merits of the grievances if
the Employer’s preliminary objection does not succeed.
It is the Board’s determination that the Employer’s objection in these categories cannot
succeed. In category 2, the grievances clearly seek compensation for additional work
performed. While it is clear that no compensation is payable until it is established that the
weekly maximums have been exceeded, the omission of a statement in the grievances that the
maximums have been in fact exceeded is not fatal to the grievances. If the Employer cannot
determine the extent of the claim it may certainly seek greater particulars or disclosure and
that can be addressed by the parties and the Board if necessary. But the claims, which clearly
set out in both categories that compensation is being sought for additional work performed,
may proceed for determination. Indeed, as pointed out by counsel for the Union, the test
grievance in category 5 expressly makes a claim for “overtime payment” for the additional
work.
It is therefore our determination that the Employer’s objection in categories 2 and 5 must
be dismissed.
3. Compensation for Lost Time for Activities in Non-Teaching Period.
Some background information is required to understand the issues arising in this category.
As set out above, the academic year established in the collective agreement runs from
September 1 until June 30 each year. The academic year is divided into the teac hing and non-
teaching periods. According to article 11.01 B 1, the teaching period is 36 weeks for post -
secondary programs and 38 weeks for non-post-secondary programs. The remainder of the
academic year is the non-teaching period and is reserved for professional development and
complementary functions. The teacher’s workload during the teaching period is encompassed
on a SWF but any work during the non-teaching period is not covered on a SWF.
The return to work protocol agreed to by the parties contemplate d the extension of the
teaching semester, but not the academic year. The protocol states that “any teaching time lost
as a result of the work stoppage may be made up at the expense of time reserved for
complementary functions and professional development. For clarity, this means that teachers
may not be required to perform work ordinarily done during the non -teaching periods to the
extent that such time will now be used for teaching.” The protocol further states that a SWF
need not be amended where the only change to the workload assignment is a change in the
dates for the SWF period resulting from the return to work.
There are three test cases in this category. The first is from Agnes Seaton. Her grievance
seeks compensation for two teaching weeks, including time attributed time for preparation,
evaluation and complementary functions, during the non -teaching period. Her grievance also
makes a specific claim for compensation for coordinator duties and preparatory work that she
did during the two extended teaching weeks. Counsel for the Employer noted that these
coordinator functions and preparatory functions were contained in her existing SWF for the
teaching semester.
The next grievance is from James Fitzpatrick. His claim is for overtime resulting from the
extension of his teaching semester for three weeks following the dates originally assigned on
his SWF. Finally the grievance of Gary Miller claims compensation for p reparation work done in
the summer for courses in the fall semester following the return to work. Mr. Miller claims that
he would normally have performed that work during the non -teaching period, but was unable
to do so because the non-teaching period was shortened by the extension of the teaching
semester. It should be noted that his SWF for the fall semester includes time allotted for
preparation for his courses.
The Employer contends that the claims raised by these grievances arise in circumstances
precisely contemplated by the return to work protocol. According to counsel, the protocol
results in a reduction in salary for the period of the strike and extension of teaching period into
the non-teaching period. The protocol states that teachers may not be required to perform
work ordinarily done in the non-teaching period during the time in which the teaching period is
extended. However the protocol clearly contemplates that there is to be no additional
compensation merely because the duties, including teaching duties, contained on the SWF are
extended into the non-teaching period as a result of the work stoppage and the subsequent
return to work.
The Union states that under the language of the protocol as set out above, the teachers are
entitled to compensation if they were “required” to perform complementary functions
including preparatory work for which the claims are sought in the grievance. Counsel noted that
the case of Gary Miller was somewhat unique as he was required to do more than the usual
amount of preparatory work for his electrical apprentice course as the Electrical Code had
recently been updated.
To the extent that the grievances seek compensation for the extension of the teaching
period, we agree with counsel for the Employer that the grievances are barred by the
agreement reached in the protocol. The parties clearly agreed that the teaching period was to
be extended and that work otherwise performed during that portion of the non -teaching
period should be eliminated. So clearly, the grievors cannot be compensated for additional
work performed during the extension of the teaching period. The Union submits that the work
that the protocol seeks to eliminate in the non-teaching period is still required to be performed
and that the work should still be compensated for, even if the work was self-assigned by the
teacher. In support of that proposition, the Union relies on two cases. They are Canadore
College, unreported, February 20, 1990 (H. D. Brown, David Cameletti, W. Majesky) and
Cambrian College, unreported, January 31, 1995 (K. Burkett, P. Hetz, J. McManus).
In our view the cases relied on by the Union do not assist in the circumstances of this case.
In Canadore College, the college was found to have violated the collective agreement by
allowing professors to volunteer to teach continuing education classes offered by the college so
that they taught more than the maximum allowable hours. The Board concluded that as t he
courses were offered by the College, the College required them to be taught and the college
should not have allowed professors to volunteer to teach those courses without ensuring that
the collective agreement maximum were adhered to. In Cambrian College, the College
implemented a legislatively enforced unpaid leave of six non -teaching days in compliance with
social contract legislation. The board in that case was able to assume that non-teaching work
that was self-assigned and that would have otherwise been performed on those days, was
eliminated on those days and therefore the College could implement the unpaid leave without
violating the collective agreement.
In this case, the parties have agreed in the protocol that the teaching period could be
extended and that professional development and other complementary functions normally
performed during the period of the extension could not be required. It is important to note that
the parties did not eliminate the non-teaching period, nor did they eliminate the requirement
to perform preparatory work. Indeed, preparatory work for the fall semester was included on
the fall SWF’s. That work could be performed at a time chosen by the professor. The fact that a
professor might chose to perform that work in the precise pe riod in which the teaching period
was extended in the previous spring does not provide an avenue to claim additional
compensation. Even in the case of Mr. Miller, if extra preparation was required for the fall
semester because of changes in the Electrical Code, that is a matter that could be considered in
the fall SWF. Indeed, in Fanshawe College, unreported, September 21, 1999 (H. Finley, R.
Gallivan, M. Sullivan) the Board refused to provide extra compensation for a professor who
performed preparatory work outside the non-teaching period when the preparation time had
already been attributed on the SWF.
Accordingly, it is our determination that the preliminary objection in this category is well
founded and the grievances in this category are therefore dism issed.
4. Compensation Claimed for Course Revisions Arising from Return to Work and
Associated Additional Work:
Claims under this category consist of claims for increased evaluation, preparatory and other
similar work arising out of the necessity to complet e the semester following the return to work
from the strike. This category may dealt with summarily.
It is the Union’s contention that it would not be equitable for professors to have performed
this additional work arising from the return to work without p roviding them with additional
compensation. We agree with the Employer’s contention that in substance, these claims are
dealt with by the protocol in the same way that the category 1 claims are dealt with. The
parties have agreed that such work arising solely from the return to work, and which is already
the subject of attribution on each professor’s SWF is not to attract additional compensation.
There is no basis therefore to find that the grievor’s are being dealt with inequitably to an
extent that a remedy must be provided. Accordingly, the Employer’s objection under this
category is upheld and the grievances under this category are dismissed.
6. Miscellaneous Claims
There are five grievances in this category. We will deal with each grievance in turn.
The first is from Daniel Anderson. At the time of the strike he was on paid professional
development leave. The terms of his leave were that he could enrol as a student and would
receive 70% of his salary while on leave. The grievor claims that he should continue to receive
70% of his salary for the period of the strike. We disagree.
This claim is somewhat unique as the claim seeks compensation for the actual period of
the strike rather than for work performed following the return to work from the strike. The
return to work protocol provides that all salaries are to be reduced for the period of the strike
such that no compensation is to be paid for that period. There is no exception made for
employees on paid leave. No work was performed by the grievor for the Employer during the
strike which would attract a salary outside the terms of the protocol , and even if such work
were performed, it is not clear that we would have the jurisdiction under the protocol to deal
with such a claim. That grievance must therefore be dismissed.
The next grievor is Yin Warrington. In anticipation of the strike, she prepared exams and
contacted students to prepare them for exams in anticipation of a timely return to work. She
seeks compensation for that work. We agree with counsel for the Employer’s assertion that this
work is simply part of the normal out of class assistance and preparatory work already
attributed on her SWF. The fact that the work was performed before, rather than after the
strike, is of no consequence and does not justify additional compensation. That claim is
therefore dismissed.
The next grievance is from Wayne Wilson. He claims compensation of ten hours
overtime pay for stress and retaliation arising from a manager being added as a grader for his
course. The Union acknowledges that the claim is not a workload claim, but asserts that the
retaliation and stress arose upon the grievor’s return to work and should be compensable. We
agree with counsel for the Employer who points out that our jurisdiction under the protocol is
only to determine workload claims arising from the return to work following the strike. As this
is not a workload claim there is no basis upon which we may consider it. This claim is therefore
dismissed
The last two grievances are from Lana-Lee Hardacre and Ron Francis. Like many of the
other grievors, their grievances encompass a number of claims in different categories. In this
aspect of their claim they both claim seek compensation for time spent preparing their
grievances. We can see no basis for awarding compensation for these two claims. They must
also therefore be dismissed.
Summary and Conclusion
We have determined that claims under categories 2 and 5 do raise an arguable claims
and should be allowed to proceed. The Employer’s objection with respect to the remainder of
the categories is allowed and the claims under categories 1, 3, 4 and 6 are dismissed. We
remain seized. The matter is remitted to the parties and they are directed to inform us how and
when they wish to proceed with the claims under categories 2 and 5.
Dated this 25th day of February, 2015
__________________________
Norm Jesin, Chair
I concur: “Pamela Munt-Madill”
__________________________
Pamela Munt-Madill, Union Nominee
I concur: “Carla Zabek”
___________________________
Carla Zabek, Employer Nominee
RETURN .. TO .. WORK PROTOCOL
The reduction in the annual salary for a full-tiroo bargaining unit member 'M11 be 11261 of
-the annual salary for each wooong day of the worK stoppage. Ti~ specified on a SWF
oovering·the work stoppage pericd shaft not be treated as having been wor1\ed fa the
purpose of Article 11.
During the ~512006 and 200612007 academic years , to the extent required by the
College. any teaChing time lost as a resutt cA the \\()r1< st~page may be made up at the
expense of time reserved for complementary functions ald professional developme~l For
daily. this means that U3achers may not be required to perform 'M>rk ordinanly done during
the non-tetnling periods to the extent that such 6me will now be used for teaching. i ;/
Given that the oork stoppage commenced mid-week, the Interrupted teachilg week of the
first week of the \Wrk stoppage, as \WII as any possille interrupted teachlng 'N8ek during
the fISt week of retum to oort in which tedling occurs, will not count as full teaching
contact weeks, but wiD be pro-rated on the basis of the a:tual contact days taJght.
"'\I VIII V.l.~
•
•
•
•
•
e.
/
For the 2005/2Q06 academic ye~' the total professklnal development days referred to in
Articles 11.01 H 1 and ~ 1.04 B 1 hall be reduced 10 9. The College may require that less
be utilized. but aly not utilized all be carried over to the year 200612007, and may be
utilized in addition to the nonnal allocation for that year. The College may use its best
efforts to avoid thIS ocaJmng.
Where the only Chooge to the instructional assignment as descOOed on the SWF in force
vdlen the work stoppage commeClCed is the change In the dates of the S'M pertod and any
resultant cha"lges to Ihetotal hours, days ald weeks, does not constifu~ a ch~ge in
ci'cumstances requirfng an amended SWF as indicated in 11.02 A 1 (b). Ally new SWF
issued as a res~lt of the work stoppage shall not require notice contained In 11.02 A 1 (a)
or 11.02 A 5.
No work specified on a SWF fex the period of the worK stoppage shall be applied to any of
the wakJoad limits In Article 11.
For the purposes of Article 11.01 G 2, the circumstances arising as a res(jt of the oork
stoppage are deemed not to be atypical.
For the purpoqeq of Article 2.03, Article 27, Article 32 and Appendix 'V, the p6riod of the
work stoppage will not be considered in determining the time requirements.
SO 17:37 PAX 416 443 8619 OPSEU Griov.nco Dopt
• ' The four-week notification period for vaca~on Will be waved for twJ weeks following the end
of the \\(Irk stoppage.
'The resur1l>tion of saary and benefits is effective on the official mtum to work date of Mardl
27,2006.
The bad faith bargaining roarges fled by the Union wiH be wthdrawn.
~OOj/ 011
•
The parties agree that a board of atitration Will be appoilted to hear any faClJIty grievances .)
arising out of or related to mm to work.E~c.ulty grievances related to Vttlrkload arising
from the return to ~rk shall proceed dltectfy)o the board of arbitration who shall have ttJe
powers referenced In Art/de 32. There shall be no reprisal or discipline arising from strike activities. includlng pre -strike
actMtJes.
Continuous servk:e shall not be interrupted.
Colleges shall pay retroactively parental and pregnancy sub-paymenfs that were not paid
durilg the strike.
TImely return of the residue from the Insurance deposit