Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 99-08-1798C175 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE FORM OF FANSHAWE COLLEGE and UNION POLICY GRIEVANCE OPSEU FILE NO. BOARD OF ARBITRATION: Richard H. C. Arb., Chair College Nominee Ronald A. Hubert, COUNSEL FOR THE COLLEGE: COUNSEL FOR THE UNION: A HEARING IN RELATION TO THIS MATTER WAS HELD AT LONDON, ONTARIO, ON HELD JUNE 10, 1999, AT LONDON, ONTARIO. the hearing on October 14, 1998 and resulted in the Interim Award of the Board dated This award deals with the A full-time employee may request and, with the approval of the College, may undertake a less than full-load between the employee and the College. The request of the employee shall be in writing and a copy provided to the Union one benefit year, plus any unused credits carried forward from on a day-forday basis. history when an interest arbitrator has awarded the language in the Collective Agreement. In The -3- p At the hearing, the Board took the opportunity to convene a brief executive .. In Re: Toronto East General and Hospital Inc., it was determined that an interest arbitration award is admissible to aid in the interpretation of a that reference may be made to negotiation history when elements of the provision awarded at It was the the language, that there was no evidence on the face of the document that there had been any The subsequent evidence of Ms. chief negotiator for the Union, and One of the central issues in dispute at the bargaining table was the sick leave the parties themselves had negotiated that language rather than the Arbitrator. In those On the basis of the foregoing, the Board determines that extrinsic evidence in the form of Case Chief which ultimately failed and led to the strike in 1989. The parties then settled the strike after Following what it viewed as less than satisfactory outcomes from the prior The idea was to try to address the issues in a broad and a “California bargaining approach”. they had retained their full-time status. Therefore, following the tabling of the management That was agreed. As subsequent language brought to the bargaining table as a counter proposal {Exhibit 9) indicates, the management had accepted the Union suggestion. Ms. testifies that she raised the question at the bargaining table concerning the interpretation by management as to whether the language meant that benefits were only prorated with respect to the premiums or she received the answer at the bargaining table that only the benefits would be prorated as to The sick leave provision has no associated with it due to the process by which the credits are accumulated and awarded to the Individual at the commencement of the by Ms. that there were no applications that had been made in the period prior to the , -6- as establishing a Mr. testifies that he could recall the general management In support of its position, it was argued on behalf of the Union that negotiating in respect of premiums which results ambiguity. Once the ambiguity is identified by the bargaining history, then it can be. used as an aid to interpretation. In using it as such, it is Re Post Corp., 10 LAC (4”‘) 244 1990); recollected with sufficient accuracy the absence of notes and other aids to memory of In Therefore, the language of 14.02 C 2 is capable of in Article 17.01 F 1. The provision is to be read juxtaposition load assignment and, the period for which it will be such an that the sick leave would be a benefit which could be pro-rated. The present Award must evidence clearly reveals that this particular language was the subject of discussions at the bargaining table and that it could be perceived as an aid to interpretation. The Board must by Arbitrator through the interest arbitration process. It would appear that the discussions at the bargaining table as a result of the management proposals filed as Exhibit 9. Those inferences could lead to the assumption that there was a special meaning to the word “benefits” which would not include sick leave. Ms. indeed, made that assumption and However, this did not appear to be a mutually arrived at to pro-rate benefits by language which it proposed. The Union had important policy Thus, the assumption about sick leave was What was discussed at the bargaining table did not in any way set up a representation on the part of management, which could give rise to an estoppel as to the respect to sick leave and was not using benefits as a specialized word in that proposal.In the discussions that ensued at the bargaining table, there does not appear to have been a specific Agreement. It is so found by this Award DAY 1999.