HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpendlove 05-05-25
c'
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES OF RENFREW COUNTY
(the "Employer")
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
(the "Union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF DAVID SPENDLOVE
RE EQUIVALENCY OF QUALIFICATIONS
-'A WAR D
BOARD OF ARBITRATION: Paula Knopf, Chair
Scott Macinnes, Employer Nominee
Pamela Munt-Madill, Union Nominee
APPEARANCES:
For the Emplover
J.D. Sharp, Counsel
Jerry Muldoon, Local Director
For the Union
Susan Ballantyne, Counsel
Suzanne Brandon, Counsel
Hearings in this matter were held in Ottawa, Ontario, on November 13, 2003,
September 10 and 24, 2004 and March 10 and 11, 2005.
I
The Employer is an Agency offering child and family protection
services in the community. The parties' Collective Agreement sets the level of
pay for Social Workers on the basis of the academic degree(s) they hold. This
grievance claims that the grievor, David Spendlove, is being improperly denied
the rate of pay set for someone with a Master's of Social Work (M.S.W.). The
basis of this claim is that he completed a postgraduate degree in England and
obtained a credential that is recognized within his profession as equivalent to an
M.S.W. The Employer asserts that the grievor is not entitled to the M.S.W. rate of
pay because he does not hold a Master's degree. For the reasons set out below,
it has been determined that the grievor's claim should succeed.
There is little factual dispute between the parties. Only the relevant
evidence will be summarized. The Employer employs various professionals,
including Social Workers. The negotiated salary scale provides for five Social
Work classifications:
S.W. I (C. C.)
S.W. II (B.A.) - denotes Bachelor of Arts
S.W. III (B.S.W.) - denotes Bachelor of Social Work
S.W. IV (B.S.W.) - denotes Bachelor of Social Work
S.W. V (M.S.W.) - denotes Master's of Social Work.
The grievor was hired in 1997 as a Social Worker. He was pegged at the S.W.
IV level. However, at that time and ever since then, he has asserted that his
education in England is equivalent to the academic achievement of an M.S.W.
He does not claim to possess an M.S.W. and does not seek to be able to use
those letters beside his name. He simply asserts that his education and training
amount to the equivalent of an M.S.W. From 1980 to 1984, he studied social
sciences, administration, economics and law, receiving a Bachelor's of Public
Administration (Honours) degree in England. The academic requirements
included a 12-month practical work experience placement in his third year of
studies. He was also evaluated on the basis of a dissertation and examinations.
From 1984 until 1987, he traveled and then returned to England and worked in a
~, 2
community program Agency and as a probation and community services
assistant. In 1990 he enrolled in a 12-month "postgraduate" program at the
University of Exeter. His studies included administrative law, criminal law, social
policy and psychology. He specialized in probation, and took additional courses
specific to that field. He completed three field placements, two of which were
assessed. He wrote a dissertation and case study as part of his degree
requirements. He was also required to pass a set of examinations. In 1991, he
was awarded a "Diploma and Certificate of Qualification in Social Work" (CQSW).
In November of 1996, the grievor emigrated to Canada. In order to
work as a Social Worker in this country, he had to have his credentials assessed
by the Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW). He submitted all the
relevant and required documentation to that Association. On December 2, 1996,
that Association issued the following opinion:
This is to certify that the academic qualifications of the
above-mentioned person have been equated vis-à-vis
Canadian Social Work qualifications and it is out
opinion that Mr. David Spendlove's qualifications are
equivalent to the Canadian Master of Social Work
Degree.
This rating is not intended to be used for an
equivalency of academic qualifications for admission
to a Canadian university, nor can it be taken as
automatically meeting membership requirements of
provincial associations of Social Workers, as these
vary in each province.
Further, the evaluation does not grant the affixing of
"M.S.W." or "B.S.W." to one's name. A Master of
Social Work or a Bachelor of Social Work or their
abbreviations are academic titles granted solely by
universities. Consequently this statement of
equivalency to a Canadian Social Work qualification
should not be considered as an authorization to use
such titles.
,
...,
,)
It is interesting to note that the letter is signed by the Executive Director of the
CASW, followed by the initials "S.W., M.S.W. (Equiv.)". The CASW describes
itself as "e federation of the ten provincial and one territorial Social Work
organizations... [that] provides a national leadership role in strengthening and
advancing the Social Work profession in Canada. Its mission statement states
that it exists to promote "social justice and well-being for all Canadian residents."
Its stated "purposes and objects" are:
1. To provide national leadership and to
collaborate with Member Organizations to
promote activities aimed at strengthening and
unifying the Social Work profession across
Canada.
2. To provide support to Member Organizations
and to serve as a source of information and
consultation on Social Work practice.
3. To encourage and assist in the development of
high professional standards.
4. To study social problems and issues and to
take appropriate action at influencing national
social policy and legislation in order to promote
the well-being of Canadians.
5. To encourage and/or undertake such
specialized studies and research in Social
Work as may be deemed necessary or
desirable from time to time.
6. To publish and disseminate relevant and
pertinent information to members of the
Association and to the public at large.
7. To represent Canadian SocialWorkers and to
advance the interests of the Member
Organizations at the national and international
level.
8. To carry on such other activities in relation to
the foregoing as may be deemed advisable.
4
The Union called Georges Latour as a witness. He is the person
who did the assessment of the grievor's qualifications in 1996 for the CASW and
determined them to be equivalent to the M.S.W. He testified that one of the
functions of the CASW has been to develop standards of education in Social
Work in Canada in order for the organization to "try to assess training taken
outside Canada against these standards". In 1996, he chaired a national
committee mandated to create a policy and process for the assessment of
credentials of Social Workers who had been trained abroad. When the
Association adapted the process that his committee had recommended, Mr.
Latour became the principle person designated to assess the credentials of
foreign-trained Social Workers. He estimates that he has done thousands of such
assessments over the years. His assessments are relied upon for people wishing
to become members of their professional associations, by employers, by
Immigration Canada and by the Ontario College of Social Workers, as well as
other professional associations. Mr. Latour explained that he has a specific
procedure to assess credentials. This includes the review of the verified
documentation he receives, such as university transcripts, Social Work
certificates or diplomas. He also reviews the university syllabuses containing the
course descriptions of the programs which have been taken and does an
analysis of the Social Work practicum descriptions. Mr. Latour reviews these
along with the World Guide to Social Work Education which is published by the
International Association of Schools of Social Work. That Guide describes the
pattern of education in each country where Social Work is identified as a
professional practice. He relies on the Guide as providing accurate factual
information about each of the selected schools and associations so that there is
a basis on which to form an independent analysis and assessment. He also
checks the International Association of Schools of Social Work to see if the
educational institution attended by the applicant is a listed member. This gives an
indication of whether the institution is recognized as a professional Social Work
training centre and whether it views itself as part of the international Social Work
5
community. After verifying the documentation and the accreditation of the
university, Mr. Latour then begins a process of equating the applicant's actual
education to Canadian standards applicable at the time of graduation. The
standards he applies are set forth as follows:
The first level professional degree (B.S.W.) is
generally a four year undergraduate program which
includes liberal arts courses (in the humanities, the
natural and social sciences), Social Work professional
courses and field practice. The general rule is seven
or eight professional courses including field practice in
the last two years.
Generally stated the objectives are 'the achievement
by the graduate of a level ,of competence adequate for
undertaking initial responsibility in general practice'.
See Manual of Standards and Procedures for the
Accreditation of ProGrams of Social Work Education
published by the Canadian Association of Schools of
Social Work (CASSW).
The M.S.W. is either a one-year graduate program
following the B.S.W. or a two year graduate program
which admits candidates who hold general arts or
other non-Social Work bachelor degrees. Field
practice is an essential component of both models as
is a research requirement. The general objectives of
programs as the Master's level are stated as follows:
'to contribute to the preparation of graduates who
possess advanced competence (within a specific area
of practice) in a particular social problem area,
professional service sector, Social Work methodology,
professional role or function or in a combination of
these'. See CASSW Manual.
Mr. Latour gave specific evidence regarding the assessment he did
of the grievor's qualifications in 1996. Mr. Latour explained that when he did this
assessment, he was mindful that there had been a fundamental change in
England in 1995 that resulted in the replacement of the diploma programs
granting the Certificate of Qualifications in Social Work with a degree called an
6
M.S.W. Mr. Latour relied on material from England and the University of Exeter
that was contemporaneous to Mr. Spendlove's attainment of the diploma degree.
Mr. Latour also relied on a publication issued in England by the Central Council
for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW). This booklet described the
one-year Certificate of Qualification in Social Work program that the grievor had
completed. This is what gave him his professional qualifications in England. The
admission requirements published with regard to those who undertook that
program after undergraduate degrees read as follows:
Courses for graduates
One-year CQSW courses
One-year courses have a shortened academic
component and less time is spent in practice
placements than on a two-year course. They are
designed for students who have, as part of their
previous studies, covered subject areas normally
included in two-year CQSW courses and have also
------- satisfactorily completed a minimum of 12 months
relevant practical experience, part of which is likely to
have been integrated with those previous studies.
Course centres are required to satisfy themselves that
candidates have reached a standard comparable to
the CQSW in these excepted areas. Experience
. gained during an appropriate placement as part of a
social studies course may be taken into account.
Candidates are required to satisfy the courses of
passes at graduate or comparable level in five areas
of study: social policy; social administration; law;
sociology and psychology. Candidates may have
covered these areas as part of a social science
degree, or may have completed their knowledge by
taking a diploma or certificate. In exceptional cases a
one-year postgraduate course may take a candidate
without a degree but with a relevant diploma.
[emphasis added]
7
That Manual referred to the fact that candidates must have reached a standard
comparable to the CQSW in certain areas. The same handbook contained a
reference to the Diploma in Social Work offered by the University of Exeter at the
time of Mr. Spendlove's graduation. Mr. Latour relied upon the following extract:
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
CCETSW AWARD: CQSW
ACADEMIC AWARD: Diploma in Social Wörk
CALENDAR: 1 year full-time, August/September;
short Easter vacation
ENTRY: Postgraduate; college-based; Home Office
sponsored
ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Usually at least -¿nd
class honours degree - a lower class can be
considered providing strong academic support is given
in reference and the quality of the application is good.
Offers in such exceptional circumstances must be
approved by University Faculty Board and Senate.
Relevant degree essential, i.e. social policy and
administration; sociology - including sociology of the
family; psychology - including developmental
psychology. Mature non-graduates with other
university qualifications (e.g. Diploma in Social
Studies) and considerable experience in Social Work
will be considered. A minimum of 1 year paid or
voluntary work experience is necessary, provided it
has been regularly supeNised and references can be
given.
. . . . .
ASSESSMENT: Dissertation due beginning of
summer term; law examination in summer term; case
study due beginning of June.
. . . . .
The extract from the University of Exeter also set out the course details and
options offered in the program, including the practical learning component.
8
Mr. Latour explained that he did not rely solely on the title of the
academic qualifications presented to him when he made any of the assessments.
He recognized that the "Diplomas" issued to graduates varied from institution to
institution, some representing graduate degrees and some undergraduate
degrees. Therefore, he looked at the length and the contents of the programs
undertak~n and whether or not there had been any undergraduate education. In
assessing Mr. Spendlove's background, Mr. Latour focused on the fact that the
University of Exeter's own admission requirements into the Diploma program
made the honours undergraduate degree a prerequisite. He then noted the fact
that the program from the University of Exeter involved 12 months of
postgraduate education after Mr. Spendlove had obtained a four-year
undergraduate degree. It also required 12 months of work experience before
entry was allowed into the Diploma program. Thereafter, the submission of a
dissertation and passing of examinations was required for graduation. Mr. Latour
says that he relied on the assumption that the grievor had satisfied the University
of Exeter's admission requirements before being allowed into the Diploma
program. Indeed, his résumé confirms fulfillment of these requirements. Further,
since the Exeter program was a 12-month continuous program, Mr. Latour
equated it to two academic years of study in Canada because the academic year
in this country runs for only six to seven months. Mr. Latour felt that the British
"continuous approach" would give greater value to the time spent at studies. Mr.
Latour also says that he considered that the Exeter degree had some "value
added" because of the prerequisite of one year of relevant and supervised work
experience before one could be admitted to the program. In assessing all this,
Mr. Latour also looked at the University of Exeter's academic calendar for the
year 1990 to 1991 from the Department of Sociology that listed the courses that
the grievor would have taken. Further, Mr. Latour also considered the
dissertation component as very important. As Mr. Latour explained, "in order to
grant a degree at a Master's level, it is important that one completes a thesis,
dissertation or a research paper".
9
Taking all this detailed course information together, Mr. Latour
analyzed it in light of his own knowledge of the Social Work field and the
education system in the United Kingdom. He was aware that "very few"
institutions were granting degrees by the name of either a Bachelor or Master's
of Social Work in the early 1990's. Instead, many of the universities were
granting academic credential with different names. Some granted certificates,
some granted diplomas, and others did grant Master's or Bachelor's degrees. In
other words, there was a variation in the practice of naming the degrees that
were leading to qualifications in the Social Work field. This was confirmed in a
publication issued by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social
Work at the time, which listed the educational institutions providing accredited or
recognized Social Work courses. It lists the Diploma in Social Work issued by the
University of Exeter, along with other one-year postgraduate programs offering
Diplomas or Master's degrees which entitled graduates to eligibility for the
certificate of qualification in Social Work in Britain at the time. When all these
factors were considered. Mr. Latour concluded and maintains to this day that Mr.
Spendlove's academic achievements were the, equivalent of a contemporary
. M.S.W. in Canada.
Mr. Latour's testimony made it clear that his' analysis of credentials
was not for the purposes of issuing an academic degree, but simply to determine
"equivalency" with Canadian academic standards. The assessment done on
behalf of the CASW does not entitle anyone to use the academic letters
associated with the degree after their name. Nor is this assessment used for
equivalency of academic qualifications for admission to Canadian universities. .
Therefore, the CASW assessment would not allow Mr. Spendlove to sign his
name with the letters M.S.W. behind it. However, in deciding that Mr.
Spendlove's diploma from the University of Exeter was equivalent to a Canadian
Master's of Social Work degree, the Social Work profession would allow Mr.
Spendlove to sign his name with the initials M.S.W. (Equiv.).
10
The detailed cross-examination of Mr. Latour was aimed at showing
deficiencies in his assessment process. As a result of the penetrating questions,
Mr. Latour conceded that he did not focus on an analysis of Mr. Spendlove's
"specialization" at the graduate level, even though the CASW's materials
describe graduate studies at the Master's levels as preparation for "specialized
practice". However, Mr. Latour did say that he considered whether the University
of Exeter's program allowed for specialization, which it does. Mr. Latour also
conceded that he did not do a "line by line" assessment of the University of
Exeter's diploma against the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work
Master's curriculum. Mr. Latour stressed that he was aware of those standards
and took them into consideration generally. He explained that he compared the
1991 United Kingdom's standards with those applicable in Canada at the same
time in a general way. He also looked at the main components of the two
programs, rather than trying to compare the courses specifically. Mr. Latour also
conceded that he did not do an assessment of Mr. Spendlove's Bachelor Degree
from the University of Nottingham. Instead, Mr. Latour worked on the assumption
that the University of Exeter would have satisfied itself that Mr. Spendlove met
the admission requirements for the postgraduate study. before he would have
been accepted into the program.
Mr. Latour was also made to concede several times that his
assessment of the equivalency of academic qualifications was not the same as
an assessment that would be performed by academic institutions. He admitted
that he was not "more qualified" to assess academic equivalence than an
academic institution and at the same time pointed out that the purposes of
assessment by his organization and a university may be different. The CASW
provides assessment to indicate to employers, professional Colleges and
Immigration the equivalency of academic achievement in other countries to
Canadian programs. The academic institutions assess foreign degrees to
determine an applicant's admissibility to postgraduate departments. Mr. Latour
conceded that universities are also qualified to do the equivalency assessments.
11
He explained that appeals from his own refusal to grant equivalencies are sent
for review by the CASW to McGill University.
The cross-examination of Mr. Latour also revealed one area of
difficulty in his evidence. One of the letters considered by Mr. Latour when he
made his assessment is dated August 13, 1996. It is from a Lecturer in Social
Work and Personal Tutor on letterhead from the University of Exeter -
Department of Probation Studies. This two-page letter provided factual details
about Mr. Spendlove's academic studies and field placement at that University.
Mr. Latour had testified that he had only placed reliance on the factual
information contained in this letter in making his assessment of equivalency.
However, the letter also contained the author's opinion that she considered his
diploma in Social Work as the equivalent to a Master's in Social Work degree.
Mr. Latour had initially asserted in his testimony that this opinion was of little
importance to him and that he had not relied upon it in making his own
assessment. He had testified, "I feel here in Canada we are better able to
determine the equivalency to an M.S. W. than an educator in another country."
However, in cross-examination it was revealed that in 1997, he wrote a note to
his own file recording a conversation he had had with the Employer's executive
director which reads:
My opinion was based on the fact that the first degree
included some Social Work related courses and a 12-
month intensive program. Consideration was given to
the fact that a letter from a lecturer stated that this
person's qualifications were equivalent to an M.S.W.
When confronted with this apparent contradiction in his testimony, Mr. Latour
responded, "I wrote that quickly. The emphasis should have been more on the
content of the letter.... I really meant that I took into consideration the content of
the letter."
12
Mr. Spendlove's own evidence emphasized that the CASW's
assessment of his Master's equivalency is recognized by the Ontario College of
Social Workers and Social Service Workers. Ontario law requires anyone
practicing as a Social Worker to become a member of the College. Further,
membership in the College has been strongly encouraged by the Employer. To
register, it is necessary to provide evidence of one's qualifications. Those who
hold foreign degrees have to have their degrees assessed by the CASW and
provide a letter of equivalency to the College. On May 11, 2000, the CASW wrote
to the College confirming that Mr. Spendlove's education credentials had been
assessed in December of 1996 "and accepted... as equivalent to a Canadian
M.S.W. degree." Mr. Spendlove was accepted into the College on February 28,
2001, and has been a Registered Social Worker since the inception of the
College. Documentation filed in the hearing records the College's "primary duty"
as being "to serve and protect the public interest by reinforcing public confidence
and raising the professional profile of Social Workers and social service workers."
As mentioned above, the wage scale in this Collective Agreement
is based on classifications that are differentiated by academic degrees. The
grievor is being paid at the Social Worker IV rate, which denotes a B.S.W.
degree. He is seeking the Social Worker V or M.S.W. level. The Union concedes
that the grievor does not have an M.S. W. and that the Collective Agreement does
not include an M.S.W. (Equiv.) recognition. However, the Union points to the
situation of Ursula Chavez who has the same duties as the grievor. She is paid at
the S.W. V rate because she has a Master's degree in psychology. She does not
have either a Bachelor or a Master's degree in Social Work. The Union relies on
the Employer's recognition of Ms. Chavez's Master's credentials to support the
grievor's claim in this case.
The Employer's position was articulated by its Executive Director,
Jerry Muldoon. He emphasized that the Agency has a legislative mandate to
,
provide all aspects of child protection services to the community. He hired the
13
grievor as a Social Worker to work as a child protection worker. Mr. Muldoon
made the decision to pay Mr. Spendlove at the B.S.W. level of the pay scale. Mr.
Muldoon testified that he considered, but gave "no effect" to, the CASW's
assessment of Mr. Spendlove's education at the Master's equivalency. Mr.
Muldoon felt that the CASW ratings were designed simply to assess admissibility
for entry into the professional workforce in Canada and that they were not
binding upon the Employer. He stressed that the Agency does value Master's
d$grees. The Employer gives financial support to people who want to complete
graduate work. Indeed, two members of the bargaining unit are currently being
assisted while they are engaged in Master's levels studies and continue to work
for the Agency. Further, the Agency pays all employees with Master's degrees at
the M.S.W. rate. This is why Ms. Chavez and another person with a Master's
degree in criminology are paid at the S.W. V rate. As Mr. Muldoon says, "It just
makes sense to put a Master's in psychology along with an M.S.W." He also
explained why the Collective Agreement gives a different rate of pay tied to
education degrees:
It was negotiated 25 years ago with the Union in
recognition that the B.S.W. would be the start point for
employment and the M.S.W. was available and
desirable for us in terms of practice and desirable for
employees in terms of pay.
Mr. Muldoon explained that the Agency values the Master's degree because it
exposes candidates to research, literature and tutorials beyond what is available
at the undergraduate level. Further, higher academic credential makes Social
Workers more acceptable within the profession and when they are called upon to
testify in a court. As he explained:
The M.S.W. brings a knowledge base, capacity to
challenge us, and an ability to deal within the
profession with an elitism and knowledge base that
seems desirable. Teachers with Master's degrees are
paid more. Are they better teachers? Who knows. But
14
there is a certain recognition of credentialism as being
desirable.
Mr. Muldoon does not consider that the grievor's education
amounts to an equivalency of a Master's degree. Mr. Muldoon reaches this
conclusion by relying on the analysis of the grievor's background by McGill
University's Stella Hopmeyer, the Acting Director of the School of Social Work
and the Director of Graduate Studies, as well as Katherine Mayhew, the Senior
Admissions Officer from McGill University. Both these witnesses have extensive
and relevant experience in assessing undergraduate degrees from universities
outside of Canada. They have to do this in order to determine eligibility into
McGill's graduate programs. They both reviewed the same documentation that
had been provided to the CASWand Mr. Latour by Mr. Spendlove. The McGill
people both analyzed the material carefully in order to assess Mr. Spendlove's
academic achievements vis-à-vis McGill's academic standards. They concluded
that the grievor's education in the United Kingdom did not appear to be
equivalent to an M.S.W. Indeed, they queried whether he would even be eligible
for admission into their Master's program. They equated his education at their
undergraduate level. Their reasoning focused on the fact that they did not
consider his undergraduate degree from the University of Nottingham to be equal
to a four-year Bachelor's of Social Work degree, and yet Canadian universities
require a specialized Bachelor's degree as a prerequisite for entrance into a one-
year M.S.W. program. They also felt that the documents available to them did not
sufficiently describe Mr. Spendlove's background in a way that would justify the
conclusion that he had achieved a Master's level of training. They wondered at
the lack of detail available concerning the number of supervised field placements,
the hours of study or the particular courses that Mr. Spendlove had taken. Ms.
Mayhew subjected Mr. Spendlove's documentation to the same type of analysis
that she would undertake if he had been applying to admission to McGill
University. She took into consideration what the materials revealed about the
length of the programs he had taken, the number of credits required for
15
graduation, the number of classes, and his practical hours of studies. The two
witnesses from McGill University simply and unequivocally did not consider the
grievor's education as equivalent to a Master's degree. Ms. Mayhew also testified
that universities are "usually very careful" about distinguishing between the
conferral of a Diploma or a Master's degree. She placed great significance on the
fact that the University of Exeter had granted Mr. Spendlove a Diploma, rather
than a Master's degree. However, she conceded that some universities are not
"as clear in their demarcation of degrees as others." Ms. Mayhew also explained
that her duties require her to make thousands of "in-house" evaluations of
equivalencies of degrees to determine eligibility for admissions to academic
programs. She,-conceded that the process she undertakes is different from that
that would be done by the CASW. She evaluates foreign degrees in order to
select a limited number of students for a limited number of placements. She
recognized that the professional organizations assess credentials to see if a
person is qualified to practice professionally in the given jurisdiction. It is the
assessment that McGill University made of-Mr. Spendlove's credentials that the
Employer relies upon as justification for paying him at the undergraduate level of
the pay scale.
The evidence of both parties reveals that there are several bodies
. that Social Workers can go to for evaluation of their foreign credentials. For
professional purposes, the CASW is recognized in Ontario and all provinces
other than British Columbia and Quebec. In Quebec, the assessments are done
by the Ordre professionnel des travailleurs sociaux du Québec. British Columbia
has its own Board of Registration for Social Workers of British Columbia. For
academic admission purposes, some universities like McGill have their own
people who are qualified to assess foreign credentials. Many universities in
Ontario rely upon the World Education Service to do the assessment.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
16
Submissions of the Union
.- ." - -
'.
Counsel for tHe Union argued that the crux of the matter is whether
the grievor is entitled to be paid at the M.S.W. rate. It was said that the salary
differential ought to be considered as a reward for the knowledge the degree
suggests, rather than the degree itself. It was conceded that the grievor does not
have an M.S.W. and it was stressed that he is not seeking academic
equivalency. What the grievor is seeking is recognition of professional
equivalency as an M.S.W. degree.
The Union argues that the CASW is the appropriate body to assess
foreign-trained Social Workers in Ontario and that its assessment of the grievor's
education ought to be accepted. It was stressed that the Ontario agencies,
employers and the federal government rely on the CASW's assessments.
Further, the Ontario College of Social Workers requires all foreign-educated
Social Workers to have their credentials assessed by the CASW. A foreign-
trained Social Worker can only be granted registered Social Worker status in
Ontario after evaluation by the CASW. The Ontario College does not ask for an
assessment by a university. It was stressed that the CASW, through Mr. Latour,
professionally evaluated the grievor's credentials based on the programs that
existed in 1991. Mr. Latour took into consideration the length of the grievor's
education, the fact that he completed a postgraduate dissertation, passed
examinations and did supervised field work. On the basis of all this, Mr. Latour,
on behalf of the C.A.S.W., assessed the qualifications as equivalent to a Master's
of Social Work in this country.
The Union argues that the Employer unreasonably exercised its
discretion in refusing to consider the grievor as a Master's graduate. It is stressed
that the Employer pays other people with a Master's degree at the M.S.W. level.
The Union argues that when the Employer exercises its discretion to compensate
17
other employees with Master's degrees at the M.S.W. level, it is being
unreasonable when it refuses to recognize the grievor at the same level.
Counsel for the Union argues that no evidence was presented to suggest that Mr.
Muldoon, as Executive Director, "is qualified to assess academic credentials".
The Union accepts that the Employer does have a right to exercise discretion in
classifying employees, but argues that the discretion ought to be exercised in a
reasonable manner. To this end, the Union relies on Re St. Mary's Hospital,
Kitchener and Nurses Assoc. St. Mary's Hospital (1974) 7 LA. C. (2d) 102
(Brandt). The Union also relies on the following cases: Re Children's Aid Society
of Metropolitan Toronto and Staff Association of the Children's Aid Society of
Metropolitan Toronto (1979) 24 LAC. (2d) 206 (Adams); Re Alberta Hospital
Association (LethbricJge1ŒgTõnal Hospital) and United Nurses of Alberta
(Venables) (1993) 36 LAC. (4th) 333 (Christian); and Baycrest Centre for
Geriatric Care v. Assn. of Allied Health Professionals (Yaakobi Grievance) [2001]
O.L.AA No. 156, No. Y-003348 (Swan).
Accordingly, the Union asks that the grievor be considered to be
equivalent to an M.S.W. and paid at the M.S.W. rate. The grievance seeks
compensation back to the time of hire, being 1997, although the grievance itself
was filed in November 2000.
Submissions of the Employer,
Counsel for the Employer began by pointing out the irony of the fact
that in the time that it has taken to conduct this arbitration hearing, the grievor
could have completed a Master's program at a Canadian university while
continuing to work and being subsidized by the Employer, as others are doing. It
was argued that the grievor is simply seeking compensation at the Master's rate
without having earned the academic credentials to do so. It was stressed that for
the Employer, this case is about the integrity of academic credentials and what
they mean. It is argued that the Employer pays a premium for an academic
18
credential that is granted as a result of academic achievement. It was argued that
the Union's case, taken at its best, merely establishes that the M.S.W. is an
academic credential that can be granted only by universities. It is a degree that is
not conferred by an organization such as the CASW, which was described as
simply "an advocacy organization for Social Workers."
Counsel for the Employer stressed that the Union bears the onus in
this case, and that "the most significant evidence" is the evidence which was not
presented. The Union was faulted for failing to present evidence of an
assessment of the grievor's credentials by a Canadian university or by the World
Education Service, both of which deal with the assessment of academic
equivalencies. It was also pointed out that the CASW uses McGill University as
its own forum for appeals when Mr. Latour's assessments are not accepted. In.
the absence of evidence from an academic institution accepting that the grievor's
education was equivalent to a Master's degree, it was said that the Union has
failed to f~lfili its onus in this case. Further, the Employer faults the Union for not
providing evidence from anyone "in authority" from the University of Exeter to
establish that the diploma granted in 1991 to Mr. Spendlove was equivalent to
the Master's degree.
Counsel for the Employer also placed great emphasis on the
difficulties with Mr. Latour's evidence because he had indicated at one point that
he had placed reliance on the opinion in the letter from the University of Exeter
that had deemed Mr. Spendlove's education as equivalent to a Master's. This
evidence was inconsistent with his earlier evidence wherein he had indicated that
he had not placed reliance on that opinion. Further, Mr. Latour's evidence was
attacked on the basis that he is a member of an organization which should not be
considered as independent. Instead, the CASW was to be "an advocacy
organization whose aim is to get more money for Social Workers." It was
stressed that the CASW cannot grant academic degrees, but is only concerned
with whether a person can practice as a Social Worker in Canada. Counsel
19
argues that there is a fundamental difference between assessing academic
credentials for equivalency and determining whether someone is qualified to
work as a Social Worker in this country. It was argued that the question in this
case depends on academic equivalency, not the ability to practice. Mr. Latour's
assessment was also faulted for its failure to conduct a detailed comparison of
courses in Canada compared to the courses Mr. Spendlove took in England. In
particular, Mr. Latour had failed to do any assessment of the undergraduate
degree. The Employer dismissed Mr. Latour's evidence as "not that of an expert,.
but as that of an advocate, trying to get something more for a Social Worker". It
was argued that this falls "short of meeting the Union's onus".
In contrast, the Employer argues that the two witnesses from McGill
University were experts at assessing academic credentials. It was stressed that
they reviewed the same documentation that had been presented to Mr. Latour.
They found the documentation to be insufficient. But taking it at its best, they also
felt that it did not reveal an equivalency to a Canadian Master's degree.
Counsel for the Employer argues that allowing this grievance would
effectively rewrite the Collective Agreement. It is stressed that the only place in
-- ..
the Collective Agreement where the term "M.S.W." is used is in Schedule A
where the Social Worker V rate is tied to the M.S.W. It was suggested that
allowing the grievance would mean that the wage rate would have to add the
word "equivalent" and/or "non-academic equivalent". It was stressed that the
alleged equivalency that the grievor seeks in this case is not an academic
equivalency, but a professiona. equivalency.
It is conceded that the Employer does pay people at the M.S.W.
level who do not have an M.S.W. However,it was stressed that all of those
people have a Master's degree. It was said that "the exception proves the rule",
in that the Employer recognizes the academic title of a Master's in order to
20
reward that level of achievement. It was said that this ought to confirm that that
rate is only available for those with the academic accreditation.
The Employer also stressed that the Union's position has a danger
of creating a "slippery slope" that could cause problems in this field. There was
concern that if an Agency such as the CASW begins to equate work experience
with academic credentials, other employees may claim the entitlement to an
academic degree. It was said that "to have any meaning at all, an M.S.W. or a
Master's has to be an academic credential, and nothing else". The Employer is
also concerned about what would happen when its Social Workers are required
to testify in court if their credentials are challenged. The Employer is concerned
that if the grievor were to testify in a proceeding and claim that his credentials
were equivalent to an M.S.W., this would open him up to the kind of scrutiny that
took place in this case. On behalf of the Agency, the Employer wants to avoid
such a problem. On the other hand, the Employer places great value on the
status an M.S.W. or Master's degree confers on its holders, in terms of the
respect and esteem that the degree inspires in the Courts and within the
profession of Social Work itself.
The Employer stresses that jurisprudence recognizes that an
employer has a right to insist upon academic credèntials, and that they have
relevancy and validity in a professional context such as Social Work. To this end,
the Employer relied on the following cases: Re Children's Aid Society of
Metropolitan Toronto and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2316
(1990) 14 LAC. (4th) 403 (Foisy); Eden Intermediate Care Facilityv. British
Columbia Nurses' Union (Kovac Grievance) [2003] B.C.C.AAA. No. 213 (A-
131/03) (Hope); Health Employers Assn. of British Columbia v. British Columbia
Nurses' Union [2004] B.C.C.AA.A No. 36 (A-026/04) (Gordon); and Re Simon
Fraser Health Region and British Columbia Nurses' Union (2000) 94 LAC. (4th)
115 (McPhillips).
21
The Employer asked that the grievance be dismissed so that the
integrity of the Master's degree can be maintained.
DECISION
In its essence, this is simply a rate of pay grievance. The Union
must show the grievor is entitled to the rate of pay he seeks. He seeks a rate of
an S.W. V (M.S.W.) . The Collective Agreement ties such an entitlement to a '
Master's of Social Work degree. The grievor does not have an M.S. W. degree.
But that does not end this case.
This Employer pays people with Master's degrees that are not
M.S.W.'s at the S.W. V rate. The Employer does this because it recognizes the
value of a Master's degree to the Agency. As the Executive Director explained,
the Master's level of academic achievement gives graduates an analytical,
research and training level that adds value to their work. The credential also
commands a higher level of respect within their professional sphere and in the
Courts where they are called upon to testify. Therefore, as Mr. Muldoon put it, "it
makes sense" to pay employees with Master's degrees at the S. W. V level,
whether they hold an M.S.W. or an M.A It is the Master's level of academic
achievement that the Employer recognizes and compensates.
Because this Collective Agreement has been applied and
administered for years by paying people with Master's degrees at the S.W. V rate
of pay, that acceptance is either an aid to interpretation or a practice the Union is
. '-- -allowed to rely upon. Therefore, it'must be concluded that the M.S.W. letters in
the Collective Agreement should not be strictly read so that they are only
applicable to people with a Master's of Social Work degree. In this bargaining
unit, the S. W. V level is available to people with Master's degrees. Reading it as
such does not amend the Collective Agreement. It simply continues the
22
application of the Collective Agreement that the parties have adopted and
accepted for years. Therefore, child protection workers in this bargaining unit with
Master's degrees are entitled to the S. W. V rate of pay.
This still leaves the question of whether Mr. Spendlove's education
entitles Him to the S.W. V rate. He does not hold a Master's or an M.S.W.
degree. Instead, he holds a Diploma from the University of Exeter. The question
in this case reminds one of the famous line, "What's in a name?" Should the
grievor's education and/or credential be considered insufficient simply because it
is a "Diploma" and not a "Master's" degree?
The Union has sought to provide an evidentiary base to support a
finding that the grievor's education is equivalent to a Canadian M.S.W. degree. It
has done this by filing documentation from the University of Exeter, the United
Kingdom's professional Social Worker Qualification Manuals, and the
assessments by, the CASW. The CASW relied upon the primary, documentation
submitted by Mr. Spendlove and its own library of relevant material. The CASW
is a federation of Social Work organizations with several goals. Its first goal is as
an advocate on behalf of Social Workers "to promote activities aimed at
strengthening and unifying the Social Work profession across Canada". But its
goals also include encouraging and assisting in the "development of high
professional standards". To this end, it provides a service to governments and
employers for the assessment of foreign-trained Social Workers' credentials.
These assessments are relied upon by the Ontario College of Social Workers for
assessment of foreign education for purposes of membership in the College.
Such membership is a requirement in Ontario before someone is entitled to call
oneself a registered Social Worker. Membership and registration are also
encouraged by this Employer for its Social Workers. The CASW had evaluated
Mr. Spendlove's education and issued the opinion that hi$ "academic
qualifications" are "equal to the Canadian Master of Social Work degree".
Therefore, within the profession of Social Work in this province and country, Mr.
23
Spendlove is considered not only to be a qualified Social Worker, but also as
someone who has achieved a graduate level of training, with field practice and
research competency. Within his profession he entitled to call himself a
Registered Social Worker and he is entitled to put the initials "M.S.W. (Equiv.)
alongside his name.
Given this evidence, does the Employer have the right to disregard
the assessment of the CASW? The best way to answer this is to address the
fundamental attacks the Employer has raised against both the assessment and
the conclusions of the CASW. First, the Employer suggests that the supporting
documentation is insufficient to make the assessment, and, in particular, there is
insufficient evidence about Mr. Spendlove's undergraduate degree from the
University of Nottingham. This attack on the assessment is not accepted as valid.
There is no dispute that Mr. Spendlove possesses a Bachelor's degree. Indeed,
he is being paid on the basis of that credential. It is also clear that the University
of Exeter accepted Mr. Spendlove into its graduate program. This could only
have been after it had assessed the undergraduate degree as being sufficient to
meet its own prerequisites for the graduate program. The integrity or the
sufficiency' of the Bachelor's degree was never questioned until the midst of this
hearing. It must be concluded that the CASW was entitled to operate on the
assumption that the Bachelor's degree was sufficient for entry into a graduate-
level program in England. Further, there is no convincing evidence that casts
doubt on that finding.
Secondly, the Employer claims that there is lack of sufficient
evidence about the particular courses taken by Mr. Spendlove. This was of
particular concern in the assessment done by McGill University. However, both
the CASWand McGill University had sufficient documentation before them to
reveal the nature of the Exeter Diploma program. This included the calendar from
the University of Exeter, outlining courses and graduation requirement. It is clear
from the evidence that Mr. Spendlove completed the requirements of the
24
University of Exeter Diploma program. In general terms, those requirements are
spelled out by the materials. An individual course-by-course analysis would be
desirable and more complete. It is certainly something an academic institution
would want to see. However, given the amount of other material available for
scrutiny, the list of courses is not necessary in order to determine an
equivalency. Instead, the overall requirements of the programs are sufficient to
determine the length, breadth and depth of studies. Therefore, we are satisfied
that sufficient evidence was available to make the kind of assessments that are
necessary for a case of this nature.
The Employer was able to show that there was a definite weakness
in Mr. Latour's evidence. He did contradict himself about the reliance he placed
upon the opinion offered by the lecturer on the letterhead of the Department of
Social Work and Probation Studies from the University of Exeter. Mr. Latour had
denied that he relied upon that opinion. Indeed, the letter was admitted into
evidence on the caveat that the factual information about the Diploma program
would be of use to the hearing, but that the opinion was of no relevance.
Subsequent evidence showed that Mr. Latour told the Employer that he had
placed reliance on that opinion in making the assessment of equivalency. While
Mr. Latour's honesty was never challenged, his reliability and the integrity of his
opinion was put in question by this evidence. If reliance upon this opinion had
been significant to the CASW's assessment, this could have been very damaging
to the Union's case. However, when Mr. Latour's evidence is looked at as a
whole, it must be concluded that the contradiction reveals some confusion on his
part, rather than any fundamental flaws in his ultimate analysis. The contradiction
can be explained by the passage of time between his assessment in 1996 and
his evidence in 2003. Further, even- if he did take into consideration the
University of Exeter lecturer's opinion about the equivalency of that Diploma to
an M.S.W., the totality of Mr. Latour's evidence shows that he also did a careful
analysis of all the documentation presented to him. He analyzed that
documentation in terms of his own extensive knowledge and the materials
25
available to him about the program requirements and institutions in the United
Kingdom in 1991. He explained and defended his analysis with care and with a
degree of professionalism and candor that cannot be ignored. His confusion
and/or contradictory evidence about the reliance he may have placed upon
someone else's opinion does not override the fact that his ultimate opinion was
based on a rational and careful analysis of the factual material before him. In the
end, he was able to conclude that the grievor had undertaken more than one
year of postgraduate work experience, entered a 12-month continuous graduate
program of studies, and completed the academic requirements that included a
dissertation and examinations. Mr. Latour concluded that this was equivalent to
the Canadian M.S.W. requirements at the time. This conclusion was bolstered
by the fact that the Exeter Diploma in Social Work was equated with Master's
programs from other universities at the time in the U.K. within the Social Work
profession. Documentation issued at the relevant time from the United Kingdom
lists the grievor's Diploma from the University of Exeter with Master's degrees
issued by the University of Nottingham, the University of Warwick, Coventry, the
University College of North Wales, and the Master of Science and Social Work
from University College Dublin. Further, since 1995, the Exeter same program
has been renamed as an M. S. W. degree.
Finally, the Employer places great reliance upon the fact that McGill
. University does not equate the grievor's credentials with an M.S.W. degree.
Indeed, McGill would peg the grievor's education at the undergraduate level.
The evidence from the experts at McGill was thoughtfully presented, honest, and
represents that University's academic opinion of the materials available for
scrutiny. McGill University's opinion of the grievor's credential must be
considered as a reasonable opinion on academic equivalency. However, the
Union's evidence also presents a reasonable opinion from an organization relied
upon throughout Canada to assess foreign credentials. The CASW is also relied
upon by the Ontario College of Social Workers to assess credentials for
purposes of membership and for purposes of entitlement to practice as a
26
professional Social Worker in Ontario. The CASW rates the grievor's education
at a Master's level. The skilled and effective cross-examination of Mr. Latour, the
person responsible for the CASW assessment, did reveal some weaknesses in
his approach. But those weaknesses were not sufficient to uncover fundamental
flaws. At the end of the day, the evidence shows that a careful analysis of the
grievor's University of Exeter program was undertaken by Mr. Latour on behalf of
the CASW. He compared it to standards in Canada during the same period,
including the requirements that there be a certain number of courses, that there
be supervised field work, a dissertation and examinations for a Master's degree.
Mr. Spendlove completed all these requirements. Therefore, Mr. Latour, on
behalf of the CASW, was satisfied that the Diploma granted by the University of
Exeter in 1991 was equal to a Master's degree. Therefore, while the opinion of
McGill University must be considered as reasonable, so too must that of the
CASW.
Accordingly, if the professional organization which is entrusted by
the Ontario College of Social Workers to assess foreign training accepts the
grievor's credentials as equal to an M.S.W., is the Employer entitled to ignore
this? This Employer is not acting cavalierly. It has based its refusal to recognize
the equivalency on the opinion it has received from McGill University. Indeed,
McGill i$ used as a review forum by the CASW itself when people appeal its
refusals to credit equivalencies. However, the Employer's opinion is based on a
purely academic assessment done by McGill University. The witnesses from that
University make it clear that they were doing an academic assessment of Mr.
Spendlove, and that they would not equate his education with that of an M.S. W.
degree. Their assessment may be fair and reasonable within their context.
However, using the Employer's own explanation for the value of Master's
credentials to this workplace, the premium rate of an S. W. V is paid not only for
the level of training involved in postgraduate work, but also for the "credentialism"
or "elitism" that a graduate degree brings in terms of professional recognition and
acceptance. The Employer benefits when the people acting in the Social Work
27
-,
capacity are able to hold themselves out as having a Master's level of education,
in terms of their dealing~ with other professionals and in terms of their
acceptability in a court of law. On the evidence before us, Mr. Spendlove has
been accredited as having professional recognition on the level that is the
equivalent of an M.S.W. from his own professional organization and from the
College of Social Workers. He is entitled to put the initials M.S.W. (Equiv.) beside
his name. He cannot claim that he has an M.S.W. But he can claim the
equivalency of training and achievement. Therefore, he has the same level of
credentialism that the S.W. V rate is intended to reflect. In this context, it is not
sufficie!1t for the Employer to discount the grievor's level of achievement simply
because an academic institution does not consider it equivalent. If the
professional association accepts the grievor's credentials as equivalent to a
Master's degree for purposes of the exercise of his professional skills, this is very
significant. The fact that an educational institution does not equate his credentials
for purposes of academic assessment is not sufficient to dislodge the
professional acceptance that he has in his field. An academic institution's
expectations for admission are different than a professional body's assessment
of qualifications. Further, an academic institution's discounting of another
school's degree does not erase the fact that a degree has been granted by the
other university. The S.W. V rate is available for anyone with the Master's
degree. The sufficiency or the quality of the degree as compared to what may be
available in this country is not in issue in this case, so long as it is a genuine
Master's level degree.
The Employer's evidence was that there is a desirability for
credentialism in the Social Work profession. The Employer also wanted to
compensate people for the "elitism and knowledge" associated with the Master's
degree. All the evidence before this Board of Arbitration is that the grievor has
obtained the professional recognition of having attained the equivalent to a
Master's degree. He has the knowledge, training and educational attainments
associated with a Master's degree. His Diploma granted in 1990 is now referred
28
to in England as a Master's degree. For all those reasons, it must be concluded
that he has the equivalent of a Master's degree. The fact that his degree was
called a Diploma when it was granted should not dis~ntitle him to be paid for the
academic achievement that the collective agreement sets at the Master's level.
Given the way that the Collective Agreement has been
administered, people with a Master's degree are compensated at the S. W. V
rate. Accordingly, we conclude that the grievor is entitled to that rate. We are not
concerned that this would begin the "slippery slope" of devaluing degrees as the
Employer fears. The conclusion in this case is based on the solid evidence
presented by the Union that a highly-respected professional agency has
assessed the grievor's qualifications carefully. He has both completed the
training and achieved a degree from an accredited graduate program and his
degree has acceptance in this particular field as equivalent to a Master's degree.
Absent any of those factors, the grievance would not have succeeded.
This leaves the question of remedy. The grievance seeks
compensation for the grievor retroactive to his date of hire. However, in a
Preliminary Award issued on January 12, 2004, dealing with a timeliness
objection, the Board of Arbitration (differently constituted) held, "while the
grievance is timely, the date of its filing could have great significance upon the
extent of a remedy in this case". We are mindful that the grievor has tried to
assert entitlement to the higher rate of compensation from the date of hire. He
was in negotiations and discussions with his Employer about this issue from
1996. However, until and unless ,a grievance is filed, the Employer is not put on
official notice of the potential of liability. Further, while there may have been
good reasons why the grievance was not filed earlier, the date of filing is
significant in terms of the jurisdiction of this Board of Arbitration and the
assessment of compensation. Accordingly, the grievor is entitled to the
differential in the rate of pay between what he was receiving and the S.W. V rate,
retroactive to the date of the grievance. We shall remain seized with the
29
implementation of this Award should the parties require any assistance, in
particular with regard to quantum.
DATED at TORONTO this 24th day of jY1A
/ / /
Paula Knot1'f, Chair i
I dissent - See Attached "Scott Macinnes"
Scott Macinnes, Employer Nominee
I concur Pamela Munt-Madill
Pamela Munt-Madill, Union Nominee
DISSENT
I have had the opportunity to review the decision of the majority. Having done
so, respectfully dissent from it.
While I agree with the majority's assessment that there were flaws in Mr. Latour's
review of the grievor's credentials, I found the flaws to be more serious than did
the majority. The proper procedure for Mr. Latour to have followed would have
been to come to the question with an open mind, turn his mind to the issue at
hand, consider all relevant matters and not consider irrelevant matters. He did
not do so. First, it was not clear from the evidence that Mr. Latour's mind was
open to a finding that the griever's qualifications were not equivalent to an
M.S.W. There is a bias inherent in someone who works for an agency which is,
in part, an advocacy group for Social Workers which makes it difficult to
30
approach a matter such as this with an open mind. In addition, and this is no
fault of Mr. Latour's, the question he considered was not whether the grievor was
entitled to a higher wage. The evidence was and the majority found that the
Employer believed that the additional compensation was for academic
equivalency. Indeed, this was a very important consideration in the decision of
the majority. Mr. Latour answered a different question: his job was to evaluate
whether the grievor had the right to practice at a level equivalent to Canadian-
trained Social Workers.
Mr. Latour also considered irrelevant material. First he considered material he
had in his file from previous assessments. There was no evidence that this
material was checked for currency; Mr. Latour simply relied on it as part of his
assessment. Second, he claimed in his testimony that he did not consider a
letter provided by a lecturer from the University of Exeter, apparently
understanding that to consider the opinion of this lecturer that Mr. Spendlove's
academic qualifications were equivalent to a Canadian M.S.W. would be
irrelevant. In cross examination, however, Mr. Latour was confronted with a copy
of a note he made to his own file following a conversation with Mr. Muldoon
which reads:
"My opinion was based on the fact that the first degree includes some social
work related courses and a twelve month intensive program. Consideration
was given to the fact that a letter from a lecturer stated that this person's
Qualifications were equivalent to an M.S.W." (emphasis added)
Mr. Latour denied that he had actually relied on the lecturer's opinion about the
equivalency of the grievor's qualifications. I find the note he made
contemporaneously with the events to be more compelling than his viva voce
testimony, particularly given that Mr. Latour's memory was not always clear.
, 31
The majority placed considerable weight on the fact that the Employer has paid
employees with Master of Arts degrees on the M.S.W. wage grid. It is clear from
the evidence, however, that the Employer has granted the equivalency only
where the employee in question actually had a Master's degree. So, the
equivalency has always been a degree equivalency. Thus, the assessment done
by McGill University, which was an assessment for academic equivalency, is
more compelling. Further, considering that appeals of Mr. Latour's assessments
go to McGill University and McGill's assessments take precedence over
assessments done by the CASW staff I conclude that the assessment by McGill
University was, in fact, done by a higher authority. Further, the Employer did not
have the ability to appeal the decision by the CASW to grant equivalency
although, as it turns out, it affects the wage they pay one of their employees.
The Employer did, however, receive a decision from the body an appeal would \
have gone to. Given these factors and the clear and compelling evidence of the
witnesses from McGill, I would have relied on the assessment by McGill
University.
For the reasons given above, I would have dismissed the grievance.
Another area of difficulty is that a matter such as this is better dealt with through
the give and t9ke of collective bargaining. If the Union wished the Employer to
recognize credentials equivalent to an M.S.W. in deciding the proper wage scale
for its members, the Union could have, and ought to have, negotiated such a
provision with the Employer during collective bargaining. It is trite to say that the
jurisdiction of a Board of Arbitration is found in the applicable Collective
Agreement. In the instant Collective Agreement, Article 9.05 provides as follows:
The Board of Arbitration shall not have any power to alter or
change any of the provisions of this Agreement or to substitute
any new provisions or any existing provisions, nor to give
32
decisions inconsistent with the terms and provisions of this
Agreement.
Our jurisdiction is to consider the provisions of the Collective Agreement and
make a decision based on the Collective Agreement. Finding that the wording on
the wage grid which says "M.S.W." should actually be interpreted to mean
"M.S.W. or equivalent" is to add a provision to the Collective Agreement or to
alter an existing one, thus exceeding the authority of the majority.
All of the above is respectfully submitted.
"Scott Macinnes"
Employer Nominee
ADDENDUM
While I disagree with the weight that Mr. Macinnes's has given to certain
evidence and the conclusions he has reached, I respect his thoughtful analysis.
However, the conclusions of the majority of this Board of Arbitration demonstrate
that a different conclusion can be drawn from the evidence presented.
However, the issue of the jurisdiction of this Board of Arbitration warrants more
comment. Mr. Macinnes questions the authority of this Board to rule that the
Employer is obligated to pay the grievor at S.W. V (M.S.W.) rate when he does
not hold a "Master of Social Work II degree. This might have been valid if not for
the evidence that the employer has administered this agreement for years by
paying people at that rate if they hold a Master's degree. Given this evidence of
the employer's practice, it is within the jurisdiction of this Board of Arbitration to
33
interpret the collective agreement in accordance with the established practice
and also to enforce consistent administration of its terms. /ÎV vf
v. l /
Pau Knopf - Chair /
.
-