Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 15-09-141 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CAMBRIAN COLLEGE (the “College”) -and- ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 655 (the “Union”) AND IN THE MATTER OF A POLICY GRIEVANCE REGARDING STAFFING CAMBRIAN PROGRAMS Board of Arbitration: Louisa M. Davie Pamela Munt Madill, Union Nominee Marc Piquette, College Nominee Appearances For the Union: Michael Fisher, Counsel For the College: Timothy Liznick, Counsel 2 Award We have previously rendered an interim award with respect to this grievance. In that award we dismissed the Employer's preliminary objection that the grievance was not arbitrable and that it should be dismissed without a further hearing (award dated April 14, 2014) Our previous award sets out the nature of the grievance and the issues in dispute in the following terms: This grievance arises because the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 655 ("the Union") claims that Cambrian College ("Cambrian" or "the College") has not hired sufficient full-time faculty to deliver its programs. The parties agree that this board of arbitration has been properly appointed and has jurisdiction to hear and determine the grievance. The College however has raised a preliminary objection that this grievance is not arbitrable and that it should be dismissed without a further hearing. This award addresses only that preliminary objection. For purposes of dealing with Cambrian's preliminary objection the facts can be briefly stated. Cambrian is a college of applied arts and technology established under the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002. Its main campus is situated in Sudbury, Ontario. It delivers post secondary programs and grants diplomas and certificates to students who have successfully completed those programs under authority of the province of Ontario. The terms and conditions of employment pertaining to Cambrian employees are governed by the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008 ("CCBA"). Cambrian has entered into a contract with Hanson International Education and Employment Services Ltd. (hereafter "Hanson"). Hanson is not a college established under the Ontario College of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002. It is a private school incorporated as a business and 3 licensed to operate in Ontario. As it is not a college the terms and conditions of employment of its employees are not governed by the CCBA. A copy of the contract between Cambrian and Hanson was tendered in evidence during the submissions of the parties with respect to this preliminary issue. As the effect of that contract is a matter in dispute between the parties we do not propose to outline it in any detail. We note only that by reason of this contract Hanson delivers specified Cambrian programs to students at Hanson campuses in the Greater Toronto Area. On its face the contract indicates that those Cambrian programs are delivered to students by persons employed by Hanson, not Cambrian. The substance of the grievance before us revolves around the delivery of those Cambrian programs and the status of the persons delivering those programs. It is the Union's position that those persons are or should be Cambrian employees. More specifically, the Union maintains that if Cambrian wants to deliver its programs to students in Ontario it must employ a sufficient number of full-time faculty for that purpose. The text of the grievance states OPSEU 655 grieves that Cambrian College is in breach of the collective agreement, specifically article 2.03A, by not giving preference to the designation of full-time positions as regular continuing teaching positions for the following on-going full-time post-secondary Cambrian College programs being delivered at Cambrian-Hanson campuses in the Toronto area: General Business – Toronto Campus Business Accounting – Toronto Campus Hotel and Restaurant Management – Brampton Campus Travel and Tourism Management – Brampton Campus Human Resources Management – Brampton Campus As settlement the Union requests "the hiring of sufficient full-time faculty to deliver the spectrum of courses within the program curricula, given the current workload allocation provisions of the collective agree ment, and the rapidly growing enrollment of full-time students within these Cambrian College programs." Article 2.03A referenced in the grievance states: 4 The College will give preference to the designation of full-time positions as regular continuing teaching positions rather than sessional teaching positions including, in particular, positions arising as a result of new post - secondary programs subject to such operational requirements as the quality of the programs, enrollment patterns and expectations, attainment of program objectives, the need for special qualifications and the market acceptability of the program to employers, students and the community. The College will not abuse sessional appointments by failing to fill ongoing positions as soon as possible subject to such operational requirements as the quality of the programs, attainment of program objectives, the need for special qualifications, and enrollment patterns and expectations. In response to the grievance Cambrian "asserts that it does not own or operate Hanson College or any business location identified in the grievance. The College also asserts that it has no employees teaching in the program-location combinations identified in the grievance. As a result, this is not a proper grievance, it is inarbitrable, and the College maintains that no board of arbitration constituted under article 32 of the academic collective agreement, under which this grievance is advanced, has jurisdiction to hear this matte r." The College denied the grievance and denied breaching article 2.03A of the collective agreement or any other provision of the collective agreement. In our determination of the Employer's preliminary objection we found: We have determined that we have jurisdiction to hear and determine the grievance, that the issues raised by the grievance are arbitrable, and that the College's preliminary motion must be dismissed. Moreover, in our view the arbitrability issues raised by the unique facts and circumstances should not be decided in a preliminary motion when the parties disagree both about some or all of the facts and the relevance of those facts upon the issues in dispute. The issues raised by the grievance can only be determined at the conclusion of the case after all the evidence has been tendered or after all the facts have been agreed upon. In this regard we are of the view that the scope of the grievance is sufficiently broad to encompass the issues identified by the Union in its submissions. The substance of the grievance before us is that Cambrian has not given preference to the designation of full-time positions as regular teaching positions. We have jurisdiction to decide that matter. In our view the adjudication of that issue necessarily involves us in determining whether the persons delivering the programs identified in the grievance are Cambrian employees, performing 5 bargaining unit work, so that article 2.03A can be applied to them. Whether or not they are Cambrian employees doing bargaining unit work may involve determinations as to whether there has been a valid contracting out. Although the contract between Cambrian and Hanson has been placed before us the form of that document can't be solely determinative of whether o r not there has been a valid contracting out. In this type of cases we must look not only to the form of the contract, but also to its substance and context. There is therefore insufficient evidence before us to decide, on a preliminary basis, whether or not the circumstances here amount to a valid contracting out and as a result whether or not article 2.03A can be applied to the programs referenced in the grievance which the Union asserts comprise bargaining unit work which can only be performed by members of the academic bargaining unit. The circumstances before us are unique and according to counsel have not been decided before. We have dismissed the College's preliminary motion. However, we consider it prudent to note that although we have jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in the grievance ( i.e.has the College properly contracted out bargaining unit work? Are the persons delivering the identified programs Cambrian or Hanson employees?) we accept the submissions of the College that if there has been a valid contracting out and the persons delivering the programs referenced in the grievance are not Cambrian employees then neither the CCBA or this collective agreement can apply to those persons. Our jurisdiction flows from the CCBA and the collective agreement and does not cover employees regulated by another statutory scheme such as the Labour Relations Act. Our jurisdiction does not extend to persons not employed by a College of Applied Arts and Technology established under the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002. This is so even if the work performed is work which could be performed by employees in the bargaining unit. The parties subsequently filed the following agreed statement of facts and supporting documentary exhibits which addressed the issues identified --- has there been a valid contracting out of bargaining unit work and are the persons delivering the identified programs Cambrian or Hanson employees? The Agreed Statement of Facts states: AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Cambrian College (“Cambrian”) is one of 24 colleges of applied arts and sciences established pursuant to subsection 1(1) of the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts 6 and Technology Act, 2002, SO 2002, c-8, Sch F and section 2 of Ontario Regulation 34/03. Its main campus is in Sudbury. 2. The Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 655 (“OPSEU”) is the certified bargaining agent for academic employees of Cambrian engaged as teachers, counsellors and librarians, a bargaining unit established pursuant to sections 25 to 27 and 82 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008, SO 2008, c-15, the legislation that governs the parties’ labour relations. 3. On April 16, 2013, OPSEU filed a grievance known as OPSEU #2013-0655- 0001) (the “Grievance”) alleging that the College was in breach of article 2.03 of the collective agreement by failing to give preference to the designation of full-time positions rather than partial load positions in respect of programs delivered at “Cambrian-Hanson Campuses in the Toronto area” (Exhibit 1 in these proceedings). 4. The College responded to the Grievance by letter dated May 17, 2013, denying that it owned or operated Hanson College and further asserting that it had no employees associated with the programs and locations asserted in the grievance (Exhibit 3 in these proceedings). 5. On May 9, 2005, Cambrian entered an agreement, attached as Tab 1, with Education Invention Centre of Canada Inc. to act as an intermediary in establishing an arrangement with an existing educational institution to deliver Cambrian programs to foreign international students in the Greater Toronto Area. EICC then contracted with Hanson International Academy (“Hanson”), a private school incorporated since 2001 as an Ontario business, to deliver Cambrian programs to foreign international students. 6. Cambrian first contracted directly with Hanson by contract dated October 25, 2008, attached as Tab 2, for the licencing to Hanson of the right to deliver certain Cambrian programs. This contract was for the term October 25, 2008 to September 30, 2013, subject to annual review. 7. Hanson and Cambrian entered into a further Agreement for the term November 14, 2011 to November 30, 2020, subject to annual reviews during its terms (Exhibit 4 in these proceedings). The Agreement was reviewed annually. 8. The Agreement in effect between Cambrian and Hanson at the time the Grievance was filed is dated January 14, 2013 attached as Tab 3. 9. A copy of Hanson’s recruitment brochure, issued prior to the Agreement with Cambrian is attached as Tab 4. 10. The Agreement between Cambrian and Hanson licences Hanson to deliver Cambrian programs to international students at Hanson campuses in the Toronto area. A copy of the “Cambrian College @ Hanson International Academy” recruitment brochure issued following the Agreement is attached as Tab 5. 7 11. Prior to entering into the Agreement with Cambrian, Hanson had been offering high school and English as a second language programs to international students. 12. At the time that the Grievance was filed, Hanson delivered two Cambrian programs at its Toronto campus: Business and Business Accounting. At its Brampton campus, it delivered three programs: Business; Hotel and Restaurant Management; and Human Resources Management. At the time, Cambrian delivered the same programs at its main campus. 13. Enrollment in the programs offered by Hanson under the auspices of Cambrian College @ Hanson was and is restricted to non-Canadian international students with valid study permits into the programs for which it partners with Cambrian College. 14. Under the Agreement, at all material times, Hanson was responsible for recruiting students to attend the courses at its Toronto and Brampton campuses. Cambrian was, under the terms of the Agreement, to provide publicity materials that it uses in its Sudbury campus for Hanson to use in its recruitment activities. In practice, that did not happen. Rather, Hanson created its own brochure, “Cambrian College @ Hanson International Academy (Tab 5) which Cambrian reviewed and approved. Hanson then produced its own supply of these brochures for student recruitment. 15. Each student was required to meet Cambrian’s minimum admissions standards. Hanson received the applications directly from the international students and forwarded them to Cambrian. Cambrian confirmed whether the student met Cambrian’s admission standards and approved or declined his or her enrolment in the program. Cambrian’s review of the student’s application for admission was conducted by support staff employees in the Registrar’s office and was restricted to ensuring that the applicant student had the international educational equivalent to the academic standing required of domestic applicants for the programs concerned. 16. Once approved for admission by Cambrian, the student was required to pay his/her tuition to Hanson. Hanson then advised Cambrian that the student has paid tuition to it and in due course made payments, as required under the Agreement, to Cambrian in respect of the students enrolled in Cambrian programs. 17. At each intake of students, Cambrian provided Hanson with a copy of the program curriculum, course outlines and textbook lists, then applicable, to Hanson for each of the programs Hanson delivered at its Toronto campuses. Copies of examples of the said documents are attached as: a. Tab 6 – September 2012 Curriculum for Business Accounting, Business, Hotel and Restaurant Management, Human Resourse Management Graduate Certificate and Tourism and Travel; b. Tab 7 – Course Outline for Financial Accounting ACC1310; 8 c. Tab 8 – Suervisory Management Practical HRM2320; d. Tab 9 – Human Resources Management HRP7110; e. Tab 10 – Program Booklist for General Business (GEBU); f. Tab 11 – Program Booklist for Human Resources Management – Graduate Certificate (HMPD); g. Tab 12 – Program Booklist for Hotel and Restaurant Management (HRMT); h. Tab 13 – Program Booklist for Travel and Tourism. 18. The course outlines were written by Cambrian faculty. For Business programs, for example, the Dean of the School of Business assigned a faculty member to write the course outline. When finished, the Dean approved the content of the course outline and sent it to a curriculum designer for final review. 19. At Cambrian, once the course outlines has received final approval, it is published in Cambrian’s Banner database. Course outline writing and approval follows an annual cycle. 20. Programs offered at Cambrian determine which courses are available on the database at any given time. As program course offerings are modified, the Deans forward the revised/new course numbers to the Registrar’s office and the database is updated. Curriculum for each program is locked in for students entering the program in a given year. Programs are approved by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. All curriculum is created, approved, and controlled by Cambrian. 21. Hanson hires instructors to teach the courses in each of the Cambrian programs offered at its campuses. 22. Hanson timetabled the Cambrian courses that it offered and assigned its instructors to teach each of the said courses. Hanson advised Cambrian of the instructors assigned to teach particular courses and provided Cambrian with a copy of the instructor’s curriculum vitae. Cambrian reviewed the CV to ensure that the instructor possessed the minimum terminal qualification to teach the specific course. 23. The Hanson instructor was then responsible for creating his/her lesson plans necessary to deliver the course materials and meet the learning outcomes as described in the applicable course outline. 24. The Hanson instructor was also then responsible for creating his/her own evaluation tools and instruments consistent with the evaluation rubric described in the course outline. 9 25. Hanson determined the hours of work, rates of pay and fringe benefits packages that it provided to its employees. Cambrian has no knowledge of these matters. 26. Hanson provided all of its own capital infrastructure including buildings, facilities, computers, computer systems, furnishings, educational equipment and the like. Cambrian has no knowledge of these matters. 27. Hanson administration engages in its own supervision of its employees and Cambrian has no knowledge of these matters. 28. A course outline is the “contract” between the College and the student that states what the student will be taught and references the academic policies to which the student and College must adhere. 29. Under the terms of the Agreement, students at Hanson are to be subject to policies and procedures equivalent to those which apply to Cambrian Students at Cambrian’s own campuses. A copy of Hanson’s Code of Conduct and Complaints Policy is attached as Tab 14. A Copy of Cambrian’s Code of Conduct is attached as Tab 15. 30. Hanson did not, at all material times, have access to Cambrian’s academic system, Banner. Students enrolled and studying at Hanson where entered into the Banner system by support staff employees in Cambrian’s Registrar’s office. Because all scheduling and faculty assignments at Hanson are made by Hanson, the Banner system does not reflect time of class or room assignment. 31. At various times in the semester, Hanson submitted grades for its “Cambrian Students” to the Cambrian Registrar’s office. These grades were submitted in electronic spreadsheet and where re-entered into the Banner system by support staff employees in the Registrar’s office. 32. Once enrolled, Hanson students are registered as Cambrian students. They are listed in the “Block Lists” (or class lists) in Cambrian’s Banner database for each course in which they are enrolled. While timetables are generated for classes, these show classes only outside of the scheduling block; programs at Hanson appear with assigned instructors but no specified times. A copy of Block Lists for a Cambrian at Hanson courses (with names redacted) is attached as Tab 16. Examples of Hanson course timetables are attached as Tab 17. 33. Hanson students receive Cambrian credits for successful completion of each course. They graduate with Cambrian diplomas and can attend the Cambrian graduation ceremony. Copies of excerpted Cambrian convocation ceremony booklets are attached as Tab 18. 34. Cambrian audits the programs delivered by Hanson. For example, in September 2013, Geoffrey Dalton, Director, Cambrian International, attended at Hanson and 10 reviewed the course teaching materials, assessment tools and evaluation rubrics created and used by Hanson instructors to deliver Cambrian programs over the prior semester (Winter 2013). Mr. Dalton then met with John Wu and Alex Ning, Senior Administrators of Hanson, and discussed areas for quality improvement in the Hanson materials. 35. In its oversight of Cambrian courses and programs offered by Hanson, Cambrian does not observe the delivery of content by Hanson instructors and does not provide any supervision or direction to Hanson instructors. Cambrian does review documentary materials used by Hanson and provides feedback concerning deficiencies and suggestions for improvement to Hanson Administrators. 36. Each Cambrian program has an advisory committee, established in accordance with Ontario Regulation 34/03, comprised of industry and alumni to advise the College’s Board and its administration on program quality. A Hanson representative attends committee meetings for the three programs still running at Cambrian, Accounting, Business and Human Resources Management. 37. The provincial government mandates colleges to collect and report performance data, known as Key Performance Indicators (“KPIs”), with respect to graduate satisfaction, student satisfaction, Employer satisfaction, employment rate, and graduation rate. An independent research company gathers this data through surveys given to each full-time student to complete. The survey results are published each year. Data from Cambrian at Hanson students are included in Cambrian’s KPIs. 38. In five-year cycles, Ontario colleges undergo a Program Quality Assurance Process Audit (“PQAPA”). Cambrian at Hanson programs are included in Cambrian’s audit. To be clear, the PQAPA audit did not involve any attendance by the auditors at Hanson. Rather, the auditors reviewed Cambrian’s quality assurance procedures in respect of the program delivery at Hanson. Submissions of the Union At the hearing into the merits of the grievance the submissions of the Union, although more fact specific and detailed, substantively reiterated the submissions made when it addressed the Employer's preliminary objection. The Union maintains that there has not been a valid contracting out. It submits that in effect Cambrian is operating a satellite campus in Toronto and Brampton but, contrary to the collective agreement, it is not using full-time bargaining unit members to deliver the postsecondary credit courses offered at this satellite campus. From the Union's perspective Cambrian is merely 11 carrying out its academic operations in a different location without regard to its collective agreement obligation to employ full-time faculty to teach its courses. The Union submits that the faculty at Hanson are teaching the same courses, using the same course outlines, to students enrolled at Cambrian College. When those students have successfully completed their program of study they will be granted academic credits by Cambrian. The Union argues that Cambrian has not merely licensed its curriculum to Hanson for delivery by Hanson faculty to Hanson students. Instead Cambrian remains integrally involved in the academic life of the students taking these courses and retains ultimate direction and control of the academic courses taught. It must do so because Cambrian is the only institution which can grant academic credit to the students taking the courses. Relying on the statutory framework found in the Ontario Colleges Of Applied Arts And Technology Act, 2002, and the Regulations made under that Act, the Union argued that Cambrian's core function was to enroll students, create and deliver a curriculum or program of postsecondary education and training to those students, and grant credits or a diploma to its students who successfully complete the program of study. In its contractual relations with Hanson Cambrian has maintained direction and control over these core functions so that it can't be said that there has been a valid contracting out. It was therefore submitted that the work continued to be bargaining unit work which engages article 2.03A. That article provides a preference for regular full-time bargaining unit members to do the work. The Union maintained that Hanson did not, and does not, have an independent ability to deliver college level, postsecondary courses for credit. Although Hanson may hire the teachers and provide the physical structure to deliver Cambrian courses to students, it 12 was significant that the students were enrolled and registered as Cambrian College students, and that the students were taught Cambrian designed curriculum according to Cambrian course outlines. These course outlines dictate what the student will learn and the outcomes to be achieved and how the student will be evaluated. T he students are required to adhere to Cambrian policies (see paragraph 29). Ultimately it was Cambrian that was responsible for their education and from whom they would receive academic credits for the courses taken. In addition it was noted that Cambrian maintained oversight of the Cambrian programs offered including the qualifications of the students and the qualifications of the teachers who delivered the Cambrian curriculum. In respect of these submissions the Union relied upon the following specific provisions of the contract between Cambrian and Hanson: 1. Definitions "Hanson Faculty" means qualified teaching staff recruited and supervised by Hanson to teach a Cambrian Course or Courses where the standard of qualifications shall be as determined by Cambrian for each Cambrian Program. 2. Role of Cambrian: a) to offer selected Cambrian Programs for delivery to Students at Hanson and to grant Cambrian Academic Credentials to Students who Successfully Complete a Program; b) to provide current curriculum, course outlines, textbooks lists for every Program for all Academic Years required of the Cambrian Program. Cambrian shall also provide a revision to the curriculum whenever necessary; … d) to review and confirm the admission status of applicants, monitor Student progress through the Cambrian Program, review and confirm Successful Completion of a Program; 13 e) to monitor all Cambrian Programs offered through Hanson to ensure quality standards are being maintained; 3. Role of Hanson: … d) To ensure Cambrian staff visiting the campus on monitoring duties have adequate office space for this purpose; e) To actively solicit enrolment applications from qualified international students for admission in Cambrian Programs, and enrol (subject to Cambrian review and confirmation) such Students who meet the admission requirements stipulated by Cambrian; … g) To assist Cambrian to maintain quality control of Cambrian Programs; 4. Cambrian hereby grants to Hanson the right to: … b) use and/or apply the name and logo of Cambrian on all recruiting and marketing material related to the Cambrian Program, subject to the right of review and prior approval by Cambrian of all affected material; c) enroll in the Cambrian program, subject to review and confirmation by Cambrian, qualified students at Hanson and deliver the Cambrian Program, subject to the following: I) Cambrian's academic guidelines as prescribed; ii) the right of Cambrian to decline enrolling a student as outlined below, and iii) payment of the fees payable to Cambrian as outlined below and in Schedule 1; d) assess students academically using Cambrian's policies, guidelines and criteria and recommend to Cambrian the grades to be assigned to each student for each Cambrian Course; 14 5. Cambrian shall provide to Hanson: … b) the current curriculum, course outlines, textbook lists for the Cambrian Program by June 30 (unless agreed otherwise), for the subsequent Academic Year of the Cambrian Program as defined by Cambrian. Cambrian shall also provide a revision to the curriculum whenever necessary; c) admission requirement criteria for admitting students to the Cambrian Program; … e) evidence of registration for each eligible student in the form of registration number/ID number within fifteen working days of acceptance of enrollment by Cambrian; f) details of Cambrian's systems and procedures for effectively monitoring the quality of delivery of the Cambrian Programs delivered by Hanson, including the course outlines, academic assessment procedures, method of delivery protocols for each Cambrian Course, e.g., Use of case studies, projects and assignments or otherwise; … j) qualified personnel for conducting quality audits at least once each year at Hanson for Cambrian programs being delivered there 6. Cambrian shall … b) award within a period of two months from the completion of the final examination of the Cambrian Program (as specified in the approved academic schedule) and within one month of the result being communicated in Cambrian prescribed format by Hanson to Cambrian, whichever is later, the relevant Cambrian Academic Credential to each student who has Successfully Completed a Program, which Cambrian Academic Credential certificate will be identical in all respects to what is issued by Cambrian to students studying at a College Campus (unless agreed to otherwise); 15 7. Hanson shall: … g) ensure Cambrian programs are delivered according to an approved academic schedule and using the most current curriculum provided by Cambrian; In the result the Union argued that the Hanson campus is not an individual separate institution delivering its own programs but was, in effect, a satellite campus of Cambrian, delivering Cambrian courses to Cambrian students. As the ultimate control and oversight of the Cambrian programs being delivered to the students remained with Cambrian it was not a valid contracting out of bargaining unit work. It was evident that the programs and courses that Hanson delivers are fully integrated with those offered at Cambrian's main campus. There was no difference in the programs offered at Cambrian's main site and those offered by Hanson at its sites. The ultimate authority for the programs offered at Hanson rests with Cambrian which supplies both the curriculum and the course outlines so integral to the students. It is Cambrian which grants students the academic credentials. The Union submitted that the tests typically used to determine if there has been a valid contracting out, and whether persons performing the work are in fact and in law persons within the bargaining unit covered by the collective agreement, must be applied in a flexible manner, having regard to the specific facts and circumstances of each case. In this regard it was significant that Cambrian was not an industrial enterprise or manufacturing environment. It was an academic post secondary institution in the "business" of delivering academic programs and granting academic credentials and diplomas. The facts of this case make it clear that with respect to that "business" Cambrian, and not Hanson, retains ultimate control. In its submissions the Union relied 16 upon Re Cambrian College and OPSEU, 5 LAC (4th) 325, Re MacMillan Bathurst Inc. and IWA, Local 2-100, 8 LAC (4th) 427, Re Royal Ontario Museum and SEIU, Local 204, 16 LAC (3d) 1 and the cases referred to therein. Union counsel argued that it was the substance of the relationship between Cambrian and Hanson and not its form which was significant. In this case the substance showed that Cambrian retained control over its academic credential granting “business”. Hanson did not and could not grant academic credits. Although Cambrian did not have exclusive control over the Hanson employees, Cambrian did direct the job performance of those employees delivering the courses through the curriculum, course outline and textbooks. These aspects of Cambrian's academic business were all prepared and directed by Cambrian and remained within Cambrian's control. Union counsel submitted that Cambrian's business deals with intellectual capital. Cambrian teaches students by engaging and employing teachers and instructors who must adhere to the curriculum and course outlines prepared by Cambrian. These enable the students to know what they will learn, how they will be evaluated, what learning methodology will be used to ensure that the student achieves the academic credits and vocational skills directed by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. In this case all those key aspects of that intellectual capital remained within Cambrian's control. Thus, in terms of the fourfold test enumerated in Montreal v Montréal Locomotive Works Ltd. et al [1947] 1 D.L.R. 161 both control and ownership of the tools, in this case intellectual capital, resided with Cambrian. Similarly, although the concepts of "chance of profit" and "risk of loss" were difficult to apply to a public service academic institution such as Cambrian it was clear that Hanson needed Cambrian. Only Cambrian can grant the academic credits which 17 students seek to acquire. Cambrian retains ultimate oversight and control to ensure that the students have earned the credit it gives them. Moreover, with respect to "risk of loss", if Hanson does not provide the academic environment and deliver the Cambrian programs promised to the student, it is Cambrian's reputation which is at risk. Relying principally upon MacMillan Bathurst supra and Royal Ontario Museum supra the Union maintained that the substance of the relationship between Hanson and Cambrian was that of the supply of labour. Hanson provided labour to perform the same work, in the same manner, which Cambrian employees in the bargaining unit perform. Hanson's labour teaches the same Cambrian programs over which Cambrian retains ultimate control. The publicity brochures used by Hanson, which prominently trade upon the Cambrian name, indicate that students understand they are receiving credit and/or a diploma from Cambrian, and that it is Cambrian programs, delivered through a Cambrian course outline, which is being delivered by the labour supplied by Hanson. Notwithstanding the fact that Hanson hires, pays and schedules the te achers and instructors, control over their work resided with Cambrian, not only through the course outline which directed them what and how to deliver the academic programs, but also through the general oversight and audits referenced in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the Agreed Statement of Facts. In the result the Union submitted that Cambrian can't "farm-out" the delivery of its programs or what is its core function. As noted in our award dated April 15, 2014 The Union argued that what Cambrian has done through its contractua l relations with Hanson is to establish a satellite campus in the Greater Toronto Area. Persons working at that satellite campus are delivering the same Cambrian programs, in the same manner, using the same curriculum as the programs developed and taught by bargaining unit members at the College's main Sudbury campus. It was submitted that through its contractual relationship Cambrian has integrated Hanson into its core business of offering postsecondary accredited 18 educational programs and academic credentials to students who complete those programs... The Union maintains that...Cambrian continues to have overall responsibility for the performance of the core function of delivering postsecondary courses for credit so that the work continues to be bargaining unit work. On behalf of the Union it was submitted that...there is a sufficient amount of work to give preference to full-time positions as regular continuing teaching positions under article 2.03A. ... ...Ultimately it is Union's position that if Cambrian wants to deliver its programs to students in Ontario it must do so by employing members who fall within the parameters of the academic bargaining unit. The Submissions of the College It was the Employer's position that neither the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002, nor the collective agreement, restricted Cambrian's ability to contract out or to deliver its programs in the manner set out in the contract between Hanson and Cambrian. The collective agreement does not contain any prohibitions against contracting out. The statutory scheme specifically contemplates that "in carrying out its objects, a college may undertake a range of education-related and training related activities, including… entering into partnerships with business, industry and other educational institutions." (See section 2 (3) (a) of the Act). That is precisely what Cambrian has done in entering into a contract with another educational institution, namely Hanson. Cambrian counsel argued that the relationship between Hanson and Cambrian could be characterized in any one of three alternate ways. It was an arm’s length commercial contract in the nature of a licensing or franchise arrangement. Alternatively it was a transaction in the nature of a lease or sale of part of the business by Cambrian to Hanson which was an arm’s length third party. Or it was a simple contracting out. Regardless of how one characterized the relationship between Hanson and Cambrian it 19 was apparent that the Hanson employees were not employees of Cambrian and that article 2.03A could not be applied to them. It was submitted that in order for the Union to succeed in this grievance this Board must find that the Hanson employees delivering the Cambrian programs to students are in fact and in law employees of Cambrian. The Agreed Statement of Facts clearly indicates this is not the case. The Hanson teachers and instructors are hired by Hanson and paid by Hanson. Their scheduled hours of work, rate of pay, fringe benefits etc. are all determined by Hanson. On a day-to-day basis they are directed and supervised by Hanson. For example the contract between Hanson and Cambrian entered into evidence provides amongst other things the following: 7. Hanson shall: c) ensure that Hanson has adequate physical space and infrastructure in accordance with Cambrian's reasonable specifications; d) recruit Hanson faculty and staff sufficient to support its delivery of Cambrian programs; e) pay for all services, staff and Hanson faculty employed in d elivering Cambrian program; t) be entitled to negotiate and agree to such terms and condition s of service with Hanson faculty and staff as Hanson may deem fit; v) be responsible for the quality of the delivery of Cambrian Courses and Cambrian Programs at Hanson; 20 It was submitted that the general oversight which Cambrian has is not "control" of the work as that term is understood in the Montréal Locomotive supra fourfold test, or as it is generally understood in the labour relations context. It is not supervision of, or control over, the working life or the day-to-day employment relationship of the persons performing the work. Instead it is general quality assurance to ensure that the product being delivered (Cambrian courses) meets Cambrian standards. Cambrian counsel analogized the relationship between Hanson and Cambrian as akin to the commercial relationship of a licensee or franchisee. In those instances the licensor or franchisor may dictate to a high degree the quality of the product to ensure that a customer receives the same experience or the same product regardless of the precise location at which the product is purchased. The franchisor however does not concern itself with the franchisee’s day-to-day control of the operations or the day-to- day employment relationship which the franchisee has with its employees. Just as the franchisee’s employees at a particular location are in fact and in law the employees of the particular franchisee and not employees of the franchisor (or licensor) under which the franchisee operates, here also Hanson employees can't be said to be employees of Cambrian. That the Hanson employees are not Cambrian employees is apparent from a review of the agreed-upon facts. Unlike the circumstances in Cambrian College supra where the only contract of the person delivering the tractor-trailer driver course was with Cambrian, the facts here indicate Hanson is a separate entity and private school delivering K – 12 education to international students. Prior to entering into its contract with Cambrian Hanson was already an independent educational institution offering high school and English as a Second Language (“ESL”) courses to international students. The contract between Cambrian and Hanson confirms that Hanson is a private school registered with the Ministry of Education. It was evident that in this case Hanson attracts and recruits its own students, some of whom may take Cambrian courses. 21 Similarly, unlike the circumstances in Cambrian College supra where Cambrian owned the tractor-trailers involved in the training program, the facts here indicate that Hanson provides all of "its own capital infrastructure including buildings, facilities, computers, computer systems, furnishings, educational equipment and the like." (See paragraph 27). Cambrian provides only the study program (curriculum) and course outline leaving it to Hanson employees to create the lesson plans and evaluation tools required to deliver the course and meet the learning objectives and outcomes specified in the course outline. The Employer argued that providing curriculum and course outline material did not amount to providing the "tools" as contemplated in the fourfold test. Rather these documents were mere skeletons to which the Hanson employees added flesh in their day-to-day work. Cambrian did not supervise that day-to-day work but, like the franchisor, undertook periodic audits and oversight to ensure quality and that the product was being properly prepared and delivered. It was significa nt that even in this oversight or quality assurance role, Cambrian's interaction was with Hanson administrators and not the Hanson instructors doing the work to which the Union claims article 2.03A must be applied. Not only does Hanson supervise its own employees (so that it can't be said that they are under Cambrian's "control") Hanson employees are also not integrated into Cambrian’s operations. As indicated in the Agreed Statement of Facts Hanson's employees do not have access to the Cambrian academic database and do no more than submit a student’s grade for entry by Cambrian employees into that database. Although the students at Hanson are integrated into Cambrian's academic environment and operations (they obtain credits and a diploma from Cambrian, must adhere to Cambrian's student policies and procedures, may attend graduation ceremonies etc.,) the Hanson employees are not organizationally integrated. For labour relations 22 purposes it is control of, and integration of employees, and not students, into the organization which is important. The Employer submitted that the relationship between Hanson and Cambrian could not truly be subjected to the typical contracting out criteria. In a typical contracting out circumstance an Employer doing a particular type of work contracts with another Employer to do that same work and then pays the other Employer for the performance of that work. Here Cambrian was not paying Hanson for anything. Instead Hanson, which is also in the business of educating students, recruits its own students and pays Cambrian for the right to do something which it could not otherwise do, namely, deliver postsecondary college courses to its students and grant them academic credentials and diplomas upon successful completion of those courses. That relationsh ip is more in the nature of a licensing agreement. In support counsel relied upon the following provisions of the contract between Cambrian and Hanson arguing that all pointed to a licensing type arrangement: 3. Role of Hanson: … b) to collect and deliver to Cambrian in Canadian dollars Cambrian's portion of any student or other fees collected according to this Agreement; e) to actively solicit enrollment applications from qualified international students for admission in Cambrian Programs, and enroll (subject to Cambrian review confirmation) such students who meet the admission requirements stipulated by Cambrian; 4. Cambrian hereby grants to Hanson, the right to: a) prominently display on a sign the name "CAMBRIAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY" at its campus, provided that care be taken not to mislead Students or potential Students about any affiliation with courses, programs or other 23 operations at Hanson that are not Cambrian Courses an Cambrian Programs delivered under this Agreement; b) use and/or apply the name and logo of Cambrian on all recruiting and marketing material related to the Cambrian Program, subject to the right of review of prior approval by Cambrian of all affected material; 5. Cambrian shall provide to Hanson: a) free of cost, sufficient publicity material, presentation kits, videos and other forms of material already in use by Cambrian, and which shall come into used by Cambrian from time to time for the duration of this Agreement, for recruitment. c) the current curriculum, course outlines, text book lists for the Cambrian Program… g) details of Cambrian's defined procedures for submitting applications, confirming enrollment, reporting grades; Counsel noted that Cambrian's obligations vis-à-vis Hanson as outlined in the contract between the parties were directed at standardization and quality control. They were agreed-upon to ensure that the "product" (teaching postsecondary courses for credit to students) was the same for a student whether courses were taken at Cambrian's main campus or were taken through Hanson. Those provisions of the contract however did not affect the supervision or control of the day-to-day working environment of the employees the Union argues should be considered Cambrian employees. Counsel also addressed the fact that the work to which the Union seeks to apply the collective agreement was not "bargaining unit" work in so far as it is not work which Cambrian provides to Hanson. Cambrian does not send its students to Hanson. Instead Hanson recruits its own students and uses its staff to deliver Cambrian authorized 24 courses to the students it has recruited. At best the relationship is one whereby Cambrian authorizes Hanson to do something which Cambrian itself could do. However it is Hanson which generates its own work by recruiting foreign students. This aspect of the relationship also affected the "chance of profit and risk of loss" factors referenced in the fourfold test. The facts indicate that because of its responsibility to recruit students and its ability to control costs through, for example, its determination of wages and benefits for its employees, control of class size, its capital outlay and ongoing expenses for infrastructure including buildings, computers and educational equipment etc., the chance of profit and risk of loss are within Hanson's control. It was emphasized that Hanson was a third-party stranger to Cambrian. Using the language employed in some of the cases Cambrian counsel submitted that, as a separate business entity, which existed as an educational institution before it entered into this contract with Cambrian, Hanson exhibits the "entrepreneurial element" which also negates a finding that Hanson is subject to Cambrian "control", so that its employees should be considered Cambrian employees and within the Cambrian bargaining unit to which article 2.03A must be applied. Cambrian argued that if one applied any of the seven factors enunciated in York Condominium Corporation [1977] OLRB Reports 647, or any of the other cases which deal with application of a test to determine which entity is the employer of employees performing the work, it was evident that Hanson and not Cambrian was the Employer (see also Re University of Western Ontario and CUPE Local 2361 (2007), 163 L.A.C. (4th) 1, Re Toronto Star and Ontario Newspaper Guild (1990), 18 L.A.C. (4th) 49, Re Gate Gourmet Canada Inc. and Teamsters Local 647 240 L.A.C. (4th) 342 and the cases referred to therein). In support of these submissions, in addition to the legal definitions of "franchise" and "license" Cambrian counsel also referred to and 25 relied upon Re Vale Canada Ltd and U.S.W.A. Local 6500 (2012), 218 L.A.C. (4th) 204, Re Soft-Drink Joint Local Executive Council v. Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. (1994), 37 C.L.A.S. 4, Re Cambrian College, supra. Reply Submissions of the Union In reply counsel for the Union submitted that the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002 does not permit or enable Cambrian to "license" or "franchise" its ability to grant academic credentials to students. Under that Act Cambrian is legislated to deliver academic and vocational programs to students and grant academic credit to students who successfully complete the program of study. Cambrian can't franchise, license, contract out or otherwise "farm-out" those core legislated duties. The Union also disputed the Employer's assertion that the course outline was a mere skeleton and that provision of the course outline was not a significant factor in this case. Counsel reiterated that the course outlined was the "contract" which governs the relationship between the students and Cambrian. The course outline contains within it the vocational outcomes which have been established by the M inistry and the learning objectives and outcomes and evaluation criteria tied to those vocational outcomes. Those dictate what the students will be taught, how the students will be evaluated and when academic credit will be awarded. In this case, by reason of the course outline which remains within Cambrian's control, those key factors pertaining to the work and the employment of persons delivering the Cambrian courses resided within Cambrian's control. Union counsel continued to emphasize that in essence what Cambrian has done is establish a satellite campus through which it carries out its core function of teaching students and granting academic credentials and diplomas. It has done so without 26 employing bargaining unit members. That circumstance violates the collective agreement. Decision The facts and circumstances of this case raise two critical questions which must be answered in the Union's favour in order for the Union to succeed in this grievance. The first question is whether Cambrian is prohibited, either by reason of the collective agreement or by reason of statute, from entering into the contract it has with Hanson. Under the terms of the collective agreement or statute is Cambrian allowed to contract with Hanson to deliver Cambrian courses to students who will receive academic credit for such courses from Cambrian? The second question, somewhat interrelated to t he first, is whether the persons teaching the Cambrian courses at the Hanson sites are employees of Cambrian, not Hanson, so that the rights and obligations of the collective agreement can be applied to their employment. With respect to the first question the Union urges us to find that Cambrian can't contract out its core function of academic instruction and the granting of academic credentials. Notwithstanding Union counsel's able submissions to the contrary we are unable to accept the Union's position. There is nothing in either the collective agreement or the statute which prohibits Cambrian from "contracting out" a portion of its core functions. 27 From a labour relations perspective it is a well-established principle of arbitral jurisprudence that as part of its management's rights an employer may contract out work to persons not in the bargaining unit unless the collective agreement specifically states otherwise (United Steelworkers of America and Russellsteel Limited (1966) 17 L.A.C. 253). There are no provisions in this collective agreement which negate management’s right to contract out bargaining unit work or which specifically disentitle Cambrian from entering into this type of contract with Hanson. In effect the Union argues that from a policy perspective a public post-secondary educational institution such as Cambrian should not be able to authorize another entity to deliver the courses for which it grants academic credentials. The Union asserts that Cambrian must use members of the academic bargaining unit to deliver the courses for which Cambrian grants academic credit and Cambrian can't "farm out" or delegate to another its statutorily mandated core duties. There is however nothing in either the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act or the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002 which prescribe or bar Cambrian from entering into this type of contract. Indeed, as noted by Cambrian counsel, section 2 (3) (a) of the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002 appears to contemplate that "the college may enter into partnerships" with other entities. To the extent the Union has made a type of public policy argument, we note that the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002 also indicates that it is the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, and not this board of arbitration, who may intervene into the affairs of the college if that is in the "public interest." In the result we have determined that neither the collective agreement nor statute bar Cambrian from entering into the contract it has with Hanson. Although the work could be 28 done by bargaining unit members, neither the collective agreement nor statute prohibit Cambrian from giving the work of delivering Cambrian courses for Cambrian academic credits to persons who are not bargaining unit members. We turn therefore to the second question namely whether the person's teaching Cambrian courses at the Hanson sites in the greater Toronto area are Cambrian employees. We note first that we are not persuaded by Cambrian’s submissions that the circumstances of this case should not be considered as "contracting out" of bargaining unit work because the work performed at Hanson was never Cambrian work but always Hanson work because the students are recruited by Hanson. Counsel asserts that it is not contracting out because the work at issue was not previously performed by members of the bargaining unit, and because Cambrian does not pay Hanson for the performance of that work, but instead Hanson pays Cambrian. Employer counsel has submitted that Cambrian does not send its students to Hanson, that Hanson in fact generates its own work through its recruitment of foreign students, and that instead of being paid by Cambrian Hanson pays Cambrian for the right and authorization to teach Cambrian courses. We do not accept this position because the evidence indicates that the same programs delivered by Hanson are also delivered by Cambrian at its main campus. The students taught by Hanson are enrolled as Cambrian students. According to the contract Cambrian assists Hanson in student recruitment. Thus the same work with respect to Cambrian students is being done by Hanson as by Cambrian. Cambrian could, if it chose to do so, have these courses delivered to its students using members of the bargaining unit. In our view where the same work which is being done, or could be done, by bargaining unit members in the employer's employ is given to another entity to 29 be performed by that other entity’s employees it is appropriate to look to the contracting out principles addressed by the cases to which the parties referred . That being said it is important to note however that th e fact that the work at issue being performed by Hanson is the same as work done by bargaining unit employees of Cambrian is not determinative of the question as to who is the employer of the persons performing the work. Thus we do not accept the Union's position that this is not a bona fide or valid contracting out because Hanson is performing the same work in the same manner as Cambrian employees and is using the same Cambrian curriculum and course outlines. We also do not agree that this should not be considered a valid or bona fide contracting out arrangement merely because Cambrian retains ultimate control of granting its academic credits to the students. Having already determined that neither the statute nor the collective agreement prevent Cambrian from entering into this type of contractual arrangement with Hanson we are of the view that the question to be asked and answered must focus on the work and the status of the persons performing it. We do not consider it necessary to attempt to pigeonhole the relationship between Cambrian and Hanson into a particular legal framework. The question is not is this a satellite campus as submitted by the Union, or a valid contracting out or a franchise or licensing agreement or the sale of part of the business by Cambrian as submitted by the Employer. The question is which entity is the “true” employer of the persons doing the work? Are the persons delivering the Cambrian programs referenced in the grievance Cambrian or Hanson employees? As noted in our interim award dated April 15, 2014 our jurisdiction flows from the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act and the collective agreement. The Colleges Collective Bargaining Act defines "employee" as "a person who is employed by an employer and is a member of a bargaining unit." It defines an "employer" as "a college". 30 In turn a "college" is defined as a "college of applied arts and technology established under the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002". Hanson is not a college within the definition of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act. If the persons delivering the Cambrian programs at the Hanson locations are in fact Hanson employees, and not Cambrian employees, we do not have any jurisdiction over them, and they can't be found to be part of the statutorily defined academic bargaining unit stablished by the statute and set out in this collective agreement. We have carefully reviewed all of the agreed-upon facts, the documents placed before us, and the cases to which both parties have referred. We have concluded that application of any of the various tests and factors enumerated in the cases which address which of two prospective employers is the "real" employer point to Hanson, and not Cambrian, as the "true" employer. We are not persuaded by the Union's submission that through its provision of the curriculum and course outline and its credit granting ability Cambrian retains ultimate control of the work such that this is not a valid contracting out. Providing Hanson and its employees with the current curriculum, course outline, textbook lists etc. does not equate to control over the day-to-day performance of that work. In this case the Hanson instructors perform their work without any direct supervision by Cambrian authorities. This may not be much different than how Cambrian deals with its own academic bargaining unit staff teaching at its main campus. That is to say there may be little direct supervision by Cambrian authorities of how either Hanson instructors or Cambrian academic bargaining unit staff carry out their day-to-day teaching duties. Both groups are expected to deliver the courses by creating lesson plans that meet the learning outcomes described in the course outline. Both groups are responsible for creating their own evaluation tools which must be consistent with the evaluation rubric of the course outline. 31 The fact remains however that to the extent there is any direct supervision of Hanson employees it comes from Hanson authorities and not Cambrian. There is nothing before us from which we can conclude that Cambrian authorities interact at all with those Hanson employees teaching Cambrian courses. We accept that the course outline contains detailed provisions which "control" what the students must be taught, what vocational and learning outcomes and objectives are to be met, the method of evaluation etc. In our view Cambrian is acting prudently when in its contractual relationship with Hanson it insists that the Hanson instructors adhere to the course outline. That requirement enables it to grant academic credit to the students who successfully complete the course. This type of "control" however does not in and of itself signify control of the employment relationship. This type of overall quality control is directed more at what work is to be done and is to be distinguis hed from control about the manner in which the employee must perform the work, or the control exercised by an employer upon its employees as employees. The evidence here indicates that the typical indices of "control" in the employment relationship of the persons delivering the Cambrian program lies with Hanson who recruits, hires, schedules and pays the employees, and who is responsible for any day- to-day instruction and supervision of the persons doing the work. The evidence before us does not indicate that Cambrian controls the "where", "when" and "how" the Hanson employees perform their work in delivering Cambrian courses to students. The evidence indicates that because the Hanson students are enrolled as Cambrian students the students are integrated into Cambrian. The same however cannot be said for the Hanson staff. There is no evidence before us to indicate that the Hanson staff have been integrated into Cambrian’s operations. In this regard we also simply can't ignore the fact that Hanson is a distinct and separate business entity which is unrelated 32 to Cambrian. Even before it entered into its contractual relations with Cambrian Hanson carried out its education related business activities as a licensed private school delivering K – 12 education and English as a Second Language courses to foreign students. It is not disputed that it continues to carry out these other educational activities. Beyond the contractual relationship at issue here there is no evidence to indicate Hanson's "business" is integrated into Cambrian's business. The contractual relationship is more akin to a contract for services. The delivery of Cambrian programs to students is done by Hanson for Cambrian without any other indicators to suggest that Hanson is an integral part of Cambrian's operations or organization. Hanson hires staff to teach and carry out its educational activities. Some of the staff hired by Hanson deliver the Cambrian programs. Hanson has, and for purposes of delivering Cambrian programs provides, all of its own capital infrastructure including buildings. When these existing and continuing entrepreneurial activities are considered it is apparent that as an independent arm's-length corporate entity Hanson runs its own business and hires its own employees to carry out that business. A part of that business includes delivering Cambrian courses to Cambrian students. Viewed in its entirety this is not a sham contractual arrangement the substance of which is designed to have Cambrian carryout its business without regard to its collective agreement obligations. Instead it is a contractual business arrangement entered into by two separate unrelated entities in furtherance of their distinct and independent own enterprises. As we have concluded that the persons performing the work in delivering the Cambrian programs to students at Hanson's facilities in the Toronto area are the employees of Hanson, and not Cambrian, we must dismiss the grievance. We do not have any 33 jurisdiction over those Hanson employees and can't apply article 2.03A to them or the work they perform. As there is neither a statutory nor collective agreement prohibition which prevents Cambrian from entering into this contractual arrangement with Hanson we are also unable to declare, as the Union requests, that if Cambrian wants to deliver its programs to students in Ontario it must itself employ sufficient full-time faculty. For all of these reasons the grievance is dismissed. Dated at Mississauga this 14th day of September, 2015. Louisa Davie Louisa M. Davie I concur/I dissent Pamela Munt-Madill -dissent attached Pamela Munt Madill - Union Nominee I concur/I dissent Marc Piquette Marc Piquette -College Nominee 34 Dissent With all due respect, I disagree with the Majority’s decision. The evidence in this case best supports a finding that the Hanson campuses are satellite campuses of Cambrian College and therefore subject to the terms of the Collective Agreement including Article 2.03A. The Majority has found the following facts. The same programs delivered at Hanson are delivered by Cambrian at its main campus. The students enrolled at Hanson are enrolled as Cambrian students. The work performed by professors at Hanson is the same work, performed in the same manner, as performed by Cambrian professors at the main campus. Professors at Hanson campuses use solely Cambrian curriculum and course outlines. Cambrian retains control of granting academic credit to students. Furthermore, as discussed on page 31 of the Majority’s decision, most aspects of how Cambrian deals with its main campus professors respecting the delivery of course work are the same as that of the Hanson locations. Both groups of professors are expected to deliver the prescribed material by creating lesson plans which meet the learning outcomes described in the course outline. Both groups are responsible for creating their own evaluation tools which must be consistent with the evaluation rubric of the course outline.The evaluation of the professor’s work is based on their delivery of the subject matter according to these guidelines combined with the students learning success. With regard to the integration of Hanson professors with the staff at the main campus, this is the necessary product of the geographic location of the programs being delivered. A similar lack of integration would take place at other satellite campuses. Furthermore, the fact that the assets being discussed here are publicly funded and publicly owned, constituting part of the intellectual capital of all Ontarian’s, further legitimates a finding that these locations are part of the provincially owned and administered Community College system. For all of these reasons this Board should find that Hanson operations in Toronto and Brampton are, in fact, satellite campuses of Cambrian College and therefore the employees employed there in teaching Cambrian courses fall under the provisions of the Collective Agreement including the provisions of article 2.03A. Pamela Munt Madill