The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUnion 02-12-17® òõÛóÐÓÆÛÎ òÍÔÎ çÎÓÍÎ öÍÊ øÓÊ×ÙÈÍÊ çÎÓÍÎ ùÔÓ×Ö ÍÎ é×ÌÈ×ÏÚ×Ê ® ÈÔ× Û ÍÖ ® ÍÖ ÈÍ ÍÖ ÈÍ ÍÖ ÍÖ ÍÖ ÈÍ ²²¾² ÍÖ ÍÖ ÈÍ ÍÖ 01/08/2003 11:44 FAX 416 968 0325 GREEN & CI:IERCOVER WOO? The Union responds to the College's objections by asserting that there is no change or expansion of grounds here and no mason to dismiss the grievance on a jurisdictional basis. The Union stressed that the original grievance raised the Union recognition issue by alleging a violation of the recognition clause, Article 1. This is the clause that recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agency for all academic employees of the College. The grievance also makes references to the management rights clause (Arti(;le 6.02) that obliges management to exercise its functions "in a manner consistent with the provisions of the collective agreement." The Union also points out that the violation of Article 1 was particularized on September 9, 2002 in a letter to counsel for the Employer as follows: It is the Union's position that deliverance of the aforesaid PDO courses constitutes work performed for the benefit of the College and as such the' College must negotiate with the Union in respect thereto irrespective of the characterization of the work, i.e. whether it is bargaining unit work. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 1 as referenced in the grievance, it is the Union's position that by virtue of failing to recognize the Union, the College has, in effect, contracted or bargained with individual bargaining unit members regarding the terms upon which the PDO work will be performed. The Union argues that the g~ievance (;an and does cover more than the individuals named in the grievance. The Union asserts that those names should simply be seen as examples of "specific concerns" that were listed in response to the College seeking names when the issue first arose between the parties at a Workload Monitoring Committee meeting. The UniOn argues that the College has known from the outset that the essence of the Union's complaint was the College's failure to credit work involved with the =delivery of the PDOs. The Union concedes that the discussion during the grievance process focused on the named individuals' SWFs. However, the Union stresses' that it discussed its concerns about its recognition ÈÔÓÉ ® ®® ÍÖ ÈÔ× Û ÍÖ ÍÖ ÈÔÓÉ ÍÖ ÛÅÛÊØ ÛÉ ÕÊÓ×ÆÛÎÙ× ÈÔÊ×× ® ÍÖ ÖÛÙ× ÈÔ× ùõû ÈÍ Å×Ê× ÈÍ ÍÖ ÈÍ ÍÖ ÈÍ± ÈÍ ÍÖ ÖÓÈ ÍÖ ÓÈ ùÍÐÐ×Õ× ² ÈÍ ÓÉ ÍÖ ÍÖ óÖ ÍÖ ÖÓÈ Î ÈÔÛÈ ¯È×ÛÙÔÓÎÕ¯ óÖ øóéé÷îè íö ® ²ÛÎØ ÍÎ ÚÃ ÍÎ ÅÍÇÐØ ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏÎ×ÎÈ øÍ×É ÍÎ ÚÃ ÛÎØ íÚÆÓÍÇÉÐÃ ÓÉ ÓÉÍÐÛÈÓÍÎ ÛÉÉÇÏ×Ø ÌÛÊÈ ÍÖ Û ÉÛÏ× û ÓÈÉ Ï×ÏÚ×ÊÉ Û ÅÛÉ Î×Å ÅÍÇÐØ ÅÔ×Î ÛÈ ÈÔ× ÈÔ× ÈÍ ÈÔ× ÍÖ ÍÇÈ Í ÈÔ× ÅÔÓ]Ô ÈÔ× ÙÍÎÈÊÛÙÈ Û ÍÖ ÛÈ ÙÍÏÏÓÈ ÍÎ ÅÍÇÐØ èÔ× é×× öÛÎÉÔÛÅ× ÈÔ× ÍÖ ÛÎ ÚÃ ×ÏÌÐÍÃ××ÉÙÍÏÌÛÊ×Ø ÈÔ× ÈÔ× ô× úÍÛÊØ± ÌÊÍÙ××Ø± èÔ× ïÛÙøÍÅ×ÐÐ ÈÔ× ÛÎØ ÍÖ ÈÔ× ÙÍÏÌÛÊ×Ø ÍÖ ÈÔ× ÅÍÊØ ÛÎØ ÛÌÌöÍæÛÐ öÐ×ÏÓÎÕ ÛÎØ ÍÂØ×Ê ÍÎ ÓÈ ÍÊ ÍÖ ÅÔÓÙÔ ÓÈ ÆÓÍÐÛÈÓÍÎ ÈÔ× ÍÎ ÍÖ Û ÆÓÍÐÛÈÓÍÎ ÈÔ× ÛÈ èÔ× ÍÎ èÔ× ÍÊ èÔ× ÅÍÇÐØ Ï×ÛÈ ÚÃ ® ÅÔ×Ê× ¾ ÏÍÊ× ÈÔ× ÆÓÍÐÛÈÓÍÎ ÍÎ ÓÉ úÃ ÈÔ× ÍÎ ÅÛÉ èÔ× ÛÈ ÈÔ× ÈÍ Ú× ÍÎ Û Û ÚÃ ÏÛÑ× ÈÔ× ÈÍ ÚÃ ÛÉ ÈÔ× èÔ× ÍÎ ×ÏÌÐÍÃ××É éÔ× ÈÔ×Ê× ÈÔ× ÅÔ×Î ÓÈ ×ÏÌÐÍÃ×× ÍÎ ÍÖ ÍÖ ÎÍÎ¬È×ÛÙÔÓÎÕ ÚÃ ÚÃ ÚÃ ÍÖ ÚÃ ÈÔ× ÍÊ ÛÎ ÛÎ ÈÔ× ÅÍÇÐØ ®®®® èÔ× ÚÃ ÍÖ éÔ× Ø×ÏÛÎØÉ Û Û ÆÓÍÐÛÈÓÍÎ Ú×ÃÍÎØ ÈÔ× ÍÎ Ú×ÃÍÎØ ÏÛÑ×É èÔÍÉ× ÅÍÊØÉ ÍÎ× ÍÖ ÍÎ ÈÔ×ÓÊ ÈÔ× ûÊÈÓÙÐ× ÅÍÊØÉ ÍÖ ÈÔ× ÍÖ úÍÛÊØ ÓÈ ÓÉ ÍÖ ÍÎ ÚÃ ÍÖ ÈÔ× ® ÔÛÆ× ÈÔ× ÅÍÇÐØ ûÊÚÓÈÊÛÈÓÍÎ úÍÛÊØ èÔÇÉ ÈÍ ÛÊÈ ÙÍÎÙÐÇØ× ÍÖ ®® ÏÛØ× ÈÍ ÈÔ× ûÈ ÍÊ ÛÊÓØ ÎÍ ÍÖ ®