HomeMy WebLinkAboutWardrope 99-01-12BETWEEN:
-and-
She has grieved that the College has made an improper response to a workload
raised the preliminary objection that this board lacks jurisdiction to consider the grievance,
type of workload which may be assigned and attributed by the College to a teacher.
A
supervisor’s establishment of a teacher’s workload is embodied in a document known as a
Standard Workload Form Article 11 includes provisions enabling a teacher to refer
disputed matters of workload assignment to the Workload Monitoring Group (“WMG”) and
Union Local President, and directs that proceedings before the WRA are to’ be prompt and
1 (a) Prior to the establishment of a total workload for any teacher the
timetable excluding holidays and vacations. It is recognized that if the SWF is
11.02 A 1 The College may, where a change circumstances requires it, amend
complaint have occurred or have come or ought reasonably to have come to the
attention of the teacher in order to give the immediate supervisor an opportunity of
the WMG within seven days of receipt of the immediate supervisor’s reply. The
that the procedure shall be informal, that the shall discuss the matter with the
written award to the College and the Union Local and to the teacher, resolving the
The award of the WRA shall be and on the parties and the
The finding of the majority of the arbitrators as to the facts and as to the
this Agreement shall be and binding upon all parties concerned, including the
..
through to arbitration before a workload resolution arbitrator in accordance with Article 11.
Arbitrator Snow issued his written award on December 1997. For the purposes of this
preliminary award it is not necessary to go into the details of the dispute and its resolution,
In I have directed that the errors noted earlier be corrected, that the hours
Promotional Meetings, and that the assignment to teach the second section of the
..
was one of the issues before Arbitrator Snow, when the parties’ positions were
somewhat the Union seeking the allocation of more tutorial time and the College
It
jurisdiction to deal with the dispute as it was one which fell under Article 11 and particularly
Articles 11.02 A 6 11.02 F 8 and 11.02 F 9.
that the dispute which has now arisen has nothing to do with the Snow award or its
been the intended effect of Article 11.02 F 6 and that Article 11.02 A 1 (a) recognized the
appointed under the general arbitration provisions of Article 32 found that it was without
..
concluding that the
11, the board relied on a series of cases 12
and Ontario Public Service Union (unreported,
Burkett), following review of that award by the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal, on
Union (unreported, February 1995, and College and
to amend it, The question now was one of interpretation which was a matter within the
the sort of question which a Workload Resolution Arbitrator was not empowered to resolve
and resolved under Article 11, nor a matter of which Arbitrator Snow had remained seized.
that the award of a was and binding), read in the light of Article 11.02 F 6, was that
that period the
..
award could not be changed. Any other interpretation would mean that the College could
“final and binding” nature of the award
repeatedly revise a teacher’s SWF, rendering the
Counsel argued that it could not have been the intention of the parties that the
He argued that it was the present board, appointed under Article 32, that had the jurisdiction
Two of the grievance procedure under Article 32.03) a . . arising the
interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention . . . of the collective
of Appeal had found that the determination of the board of arbitration in was not
patently unreasonable and could stand. He suggested that the awards relied on by the College
was however, when the award of a Workload Resolution Arbitrator had already been
obtained and where the College had abrogated it. Indeed the award had expressly
recognized the possibility that the procedures of Article 32 might be invoked to deal with
of a WRA. Each of the Article 11 process and the Article 32 process provides for a and
interest at stake which an individual workload under Article 11 may not resolve or
(supra). We will indicate quite briefly our
been examined with care in
that the College was in breach of what is now Article 11.01 C by assigning partial contact
The board found (at 11) that . . .
The Court of Appeal ultimately determined that the board’s interpretation was one which the
that case must be seen as expanding the potential access to now Article 32 for the
determines, there an avenue open for the Union to take carriage of the matter
far
So as individual workload issues were concerned, the board in was
It is diicult to imagine what
provide speedy, informal and individual resolution of disputes in the context of the
we do not think that the fact that the Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court
The board was
within the jurisdiction of a and an issue arising more generally under the collective
agreement. The case involved an individual grievance that a teacher had not been given
to deal with the matter other than through the SWF would the board be prepared to take
appointed under Article 32 was prepared to take jurisdiction when a dispute with workload
The
to take such leaves was not a matter of workload but rather a requirement not to work. The
board recognized, however, that the College’s requirement that teachers take leave during the
Despite its willingness to
i
..
11.02 A 6 (a)). The answer may depend on how the situation is characterized. One way of
looking at it would be as a matter of implementation, with respect to which Arbitrator Snow
However neither party considers that that is the nature of the
situation; if either suggested that it was, we would think that it would be within the
has refused to apply the award and has actually purported to change the award.In this
way the Union seeks to bring the dispute into the category of matters broader than purely
11.02 A l(b) and Article 11.02 F 6.
The College observes that the of these two articles
and then on to a WRA.
which has already been the subject of the referral and arbitration process as to an amendment
..
As a practical
of a term and the need to provide a consistent program to students.
not persuaded that the last sentence has the the Union argues for. Article 11.02 F 6
reassurance that, if the result of the process may lack in thoroughness what it may gain in
We would also think that would be particularly the case when it has been
the way for a policy grievance under Article 32.
For example, if a WRA determined that in
particular circumstances an SWF must give credit of one hour for a particular task, and if the
in circumstances, that would be the sort of “repetitive conduct uninformed by prior WRA
1998, did assert a change in circumstances as justification: the requests of students for
At that pont
I concur/W