Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 05-11-22IN THE MATTER Of AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ST. LAWRENCE CAAT - ACADEMIC (the "Employer") - AND- ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 417 (the "Union") AND IN THE MATTER OF UNION GRIEVANCE # 441728 REGARDING THE STANDARD WORKLOAD FORM BOARD OF ARBITRATION Louisa M. Davie, Chair R. O'Connor, Employer Nominee R. Kelly, Union Nominee APPEARANCES FOR THE EMPLOYER: Patricia Brethour, Counsel Cindy Bleakney FOR THE UNION: Paul Champ, Counsel Mary Ann White The hearing in this matter was held in Kingston, Ontario, on October 17, 2005. 2. Award In this group grievance, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union ("the Union) grieves that St. Lawrence College ("the College") "is violating Article(s) 1/6 and Appendix 1 specifically but not exclusively in that they have not used the correct SWF form." In addition to its position that the grievance was without merit, the College raised a preliminary objection to this Board's jurisdiction. The parties argued the preliminary objection and the merits of the case together, on the basis of agreed facts, and the evidence of a single witness, Mary Ann White. The positions of the parties are straightforward. The Union asserts that the Collective Agreement requires the College to use the Standard Workload Form ("SWF") set out in Appendix 1 of the Collective Agreement. The Union submits the College must use the form as depicted in Appendix 1, and maintains the College has failed to do so. The response of the College to the merits of the grievance is succinctly set out in its Step Two reply which states that "All of the information contained in the form in Appendix 1 is included in a similar fashion on the form generated electronically. I believe the form used by the College is a reasonable 3 facsimile of the form contained in Appendix 1. I believe the College is in compliance with the intent to the Collective Agreement..." The facts are equally straightforward. The grievance .arises because the College instituted an electronic format of the SWF form. The College obtained what was described in the evidence as the SLIC computer program. It hired a programmer to make changes to the SLIC program to suit the College's requirements. The SWF produced by the SLIC does not exactly duplicate Appendix 1 of the Collective Agreement with the result that the College uses a computerized SWF form that is a very similar, but not identical to the format set out in Appendix 1. The parties used to have an agreement that allowed the College to use the modified format, but that agreement is no longer in place. The agreement was in effect from March 2001 to April 2004. This group grievance was filed May 20, 2004. For ease of reference the Appendix 1 SWF form and the computerized SWF used by the College are attached to this award. The differences between the forms are as follows: 4 First, the Appendix 1 SWF has a line to check off the classification status of the teacher as follows: ( ) Full-time/ ( ) Partial Load/ ( ) Part-time/ ( )Sessional. The computerized SWF does not have that line, and instead uses a "drop-down box" electronic format by which the user checks off one of the four enumerated classifications. The SWF form subsequently generated by the computer shows only the classification checked. Secondly, the Appendix 1 SWF contains six lines under the various boxes which are in the "References to Collective Agreement" area of the form. The computerized SWF does not have those lines. The space provided in the boxes is also larger. Finally, in the portion of the SWF entitled '¥oluntary Overtime Agreement" the words "Workload Hour(s)" have been added to the computerized SWF form immediately before the Faculty Member's Signature, and at the end of the line "1 hereby agree to One Teaching Contact Hour or ........... " Those words do not appear on the Appendix 1 SWF. The viva voce evidence discloses that the lack of lines and the larger box size in the "References to Collective Agreement" area of the SWF permits, and has been utilized by the College, to put in more than six sections , (classes and labs). The evidence does not indicate that voluntary overtime can be anything other than one teaching contact hour or three workload hours in any one week (Article 11.01 J 1). Submissions of the Parties With respect to the first difference, the Union submits that the absence of a line which sets out each of the four potential classifications detracts from its position that the SWF applies to each of the enumerated classifications, not just the classification of the particular employee receiving the form. In addition, if other employees in other classifications don't receive a SWF, they may be under the mistaken belief that they are not entitled to a SWF because the form they happened to view referred to a different classification. As to the second difference enumerated above, the Union maintains that the Appendix 1 SWF contains six lines because the Collective Agreement does not permit the College to assign more than six different sections (Article 11.01 D 2). To the extent the College asserts that the Collective Agreement permits the teacher to voluntarily agree to an assignment of more than six different sections, the lack of lines, and the larger box, do not draw the teacher's attention to the voluntary nature of that commitment. With the six lines and smaller box size anything over and above six different sections would appear outside the box, clearly highlighting to viewers of the SWF (whether the employee or the Union members of the Workload Monitoring Group) that the workload is exceptional. As to the third difference, the Union submits that this is an unwarranted addition to the Appendix 1 SWF. Although unable to state how overtime worked by a teacher could be calculated in anything other than teaching contact hour or workload hours, the Union argued it was unable to envision each and every circumstance, asserting that the Appendix 1 SWF intentionally left the matter blank in the event something other than one teaching contact hour was to be used. Union counsel submitted also that the grievance, and the Union's concerns about the electronic SWF, should not be viewed as trivial. The Union and College themselves have viewed any modifications to the SWF as a significant matter as evidenced by the fact that in the past the parties had formally entered into an agreement about the modifications. It was not good enough for the College to say that the electronic SWF complied with the intent of the Collective Agreement. The Union took the position that if the College wanted to make any changes to the Appendix 1 SWF, it had to meet and discuss the matter with the Local Union, and obtain the Union's agreement to the changes. If the College was not required to do so in this case, because the changes are viewed as "minimal" or "not serious" there was nothing to preclude the College from making more significant changes in the future. With respect to the merits of the grievance, the College submitted that the differences between the Appendix 1 SWF and the electronic SWF were minor, purely superficial and cosmetic. The differences did not have an adverse effect on any employee or the Union, and did not point to a violation of any substantive provision of the Collective Agreement. All of the substantive information required by the Appendix 1 SWF was also found on the electronic computerized SWF The College argued that the first difference set out above is immaterial. The fact that the classifications are listed in a drop-down box as a field for computer selection, rather than a single line, neither detracts from nor buttresses any argument that may be made by either party that the SWF applies to a particular classification. On an individual basis, the classification status of the teacher receiving the SWF must still be correct. The second difference is, from the College's perspective, equally minor. The lack of lines is cosmetic. The number of lines in a box or the size of the box was not significant especially given that there's nothing in the Collective Agreement which prohibits the assignment of more than six sections where the employee agrees (Article 11.01 D 2). 8 As to the position that the lack of lines and a bigger sized box doesn't draw the assignment of more than six sections to the attention of the employee or the Union, the College argued that the faculty member must sign off on the SWF, something that is clearly indicated on the SWF. If there is disagreement about the workload, the employee can refer the proposed workload to the College Workload Monitoring Group ("WMG") and the College Workload Resolution Arbitrator ("WRA"). Moreover, the Union receives a copy of all the SWF forms. If the Union was concerned that its members may not be aware of all the Collective Agreement provisions relating to workload and/or the number of sections assigned, the Union has the means available to it to communicate and educate its members about these provisions. The College maintained that the third difference merely recognizes the Collective Agreement provisions relating to voluntary overtime. Article 11.01 J 1 makes it clear that voluntary overtime can only be one of two things -- one teaching contact hour or three total workload hours in any one week. The preprinted addition of the words "Workload Hour(s)" merely saves a person the time of having to write it out. As an alternative but complementary submission on the merits, College counsel argued that the differences should be viewed in a "de minimis" fashion. Relying on the legal principle "de minimis non curat lex", College counsel submitted that the grievance should be dismissed because, as in other 9 areas of the law, labour relations grievance arbitration should not concern itself with trifles. Counsel urged that a "certain amount of common sense" be brought to bear on this matter when, as here, there are no substantive changes to the form, and neither the rights of employees nor the Union have been affected (Re Carling O'Keefe Breweries 31 LAC (3d) 69 (Beattie). The grievance arbitration process is designed to assist parties when genuine issues with respect to the interpretation and application of the Collective Agreement arise. It should not be used in the circumstances of this case. As noted, the College also raised a preliminary objection to our jurisdiction. Counsel submitted that reference to Appendix 1 is only found in Adicle 11.02. Article 11.02 A 6 (a) clearly indicates that complaints with respect to Article 11.02 must be taken to the WMG and/or the WRA, and are not within the jurisdiction of this Board of Arbitration. In so doing counsel relied on the award of a Board of Arbitration chaired by Paula Knopf involving these same parties (St. Lawrence CAAT - Academic and OPSEU, unreported award dated May 12, 2004 - grievance 2003-017-0053) (hereafter the "Knopf award") wherein the Board stated at pg. 9-10: "Article 11 sets out a comprehensive code and procedure for dealing with the differences that arise with regard to the interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention of Articles 11.01 and 11.02. The allegations here are not that the employer violated Article 11.02. However, Article 11.02 A 6 (a) dictate that such allegations shall be discussed with the immediate supervisor and if they are not resolved, they must be referred by the teacher or the Union to the workload monitoring group (WMG). Both the new teacher and the Union have the right to make such a referral. These rights are acknowledged by the College and have been affirmed by the Court of Appeal in the George Brown case, supra .... The forum for the complaint is not grievance arbitration. It is the WMG. The Collective Agreement could not be clearer. It refers to differences arising with respect to Article 11.01 and 11.02 as "complaints" that are to be processed at the WMG forum. In contrast, the Collective Agreement mandates that "grievances" arising with respect to workload issues "other than 11.01 and 11.02" are to be referred to arbitration. Therefore, the Collective Agreement draws a clear distinction between the 11.01 and 11.02 "complaints" and other types of workload "grievances." Therefore, Article 11.01 and 11.02 complaints can only be dealt with by the Workload Monitoring Group or ultimately Workload Resolution Arbitration. They are not within the jurisdiction of a grievance arbitration board under this Collective Agreement." In reply, Union counsel submitted that the grievance was a group grievance filed by the Union because it does not deal with a complaint regarding a specific workload assignment to an individual employee. Rather, it is a grievance involving the interpretation and application of the Collective Agreement, and concerns a matter over which the WRG or the WRA doesn't have jurisdiction. The Appendix 1 SWF indicates that it may be revised only by the Employee/Employer Relations committee ("EERC"), not by the WRG or the WRA. Union counsel relied upon Article 11.02 A 6 (b) which permits grievances "arising with respect to Article 11, Workload, other than 11.01 and 11.02" to be handled in accordance with the regular grievance procedure. ].I Although the Union agreed that a reference to the Appendix 1 SWF was only found in Article 11.02, the grievance itself raises broad issues regarding the College's exercise of its Management's Right (Article 6.) To the extent the grievance deals with "workload" it does not do so from the perspective of workload assignments to specific employees, but from a broad perspective of a form used which affects all employees. It is precisely a group grievance filed by the Union because the remedial relief requested (to have the College use only the Appendix 1 form and cease and desist using the SWF it presently uses) is not particular to one individual employee, and is not something which the WMG or a WRA can grant. The role of the WMG or WRA is to look at the individual workload assignment and resolve disputes regarding those. It was not intended by the parties to the Collective Agreement to have issues regarding Management's Rights, or issues which affected the entire bargaining unit, dealt with by the WMG or WRA. That is not the function or expertise of the WMG or WRA. As to the position of the College on the merits, Union counsel noted that the response of the College tacitly acknowledged that it was violating the Collective Agreement when it maintains that it was in compliance with the "intent of the Collective Agreement" and that the form used is a "reasonable facsimile" of Appendix 1. As to the submissions that a "de minimis" principle should be applied, counsel reiterated the Union's position that a matter which the parties themselves had taken the time to discuss and formally agree upon (in a now expired agreement) could not be said to be trifling. Decision For ease of reference the applicable collective agreement provisions are appended to this award. We dismiss the preliminary motion of the College and find that we have jurisdiction to hear and determine the grievance. We agree with the unanimous Knopf award, but find that the facts of the case before that Board are so different from those of the instant case that the award can't be applied here. The Knopf award dealt with delivery of the timetable and SWF to an individual teac'her. The teacher herself had not lodged a complaint about the matter. The Union however argued that the SWF and timetable had not been delivered within the time frames specified in the Collective Agreement. The Knopf award correctly and appropriately notes at pages 10-11 that "the enumerated functions of the WMG illustrate its suitability for matters such as the ones raised by this case. The WMG can review the individual workload assignment (11.02 C 1 9 (iv)), give consideration to the nature of the subjects to be taught (11.02 C 2 (i), consider the lead time for preparation of the new schedule (11.02 C 2 (viii) and look at the timetabling of the workload (11.02 C. 2 (xii)). These functions give the WMG the power and the authority to deal appropriately with matters within its expertise. This is probably why the parties to this Collective Agreement have contracted to keep complaints and differences concerning articles 11.01 and 11.02 within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WMG and the WRA. The functions and mandates of the WMG and the WRA illustrate how well they are suited for the task. In the case at hand, the WMG could consider the nature of the new teacher's courses, the timetable available for her to prepare for the new term and timetabling of her classes. If a complaint been lodged, a practical and timely resolution could have been achieved." These comments underscore that the general nature of workload complaints which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WMG and WRA are complaints about specific workloads assigned to teachers. This rationale can't be applied to the instant case. It is not the function or expertise of the local College WMG to address revision or modification of the Appendix 1 SWF. As noted on the Appendix 1 SWF, that function is reserved to the EERC. In our view the crux and substance of this grievance falls within the exception carved out in Article 11.02 A 6 (b) whereby "grievances'' (not complaints) arising with respect to workload issues "other than 11.01 and 11.02" are to proceed through the Article 32 grievance/arbitration process. It raises issues that are not exclusive to Article 11.01 and 11.02. In this regard we note that although the Appendix 1 SWF is referred to in Article 11.01 and 11.02, the SWF itself is not found in those articles, but is a separate Appendix to the Collective Agreement. The SWF indicates its format "may require revision by 14 the EERC" --- a Committee whose composition and functions are found in Article 9 of the Collective Agreement. That the EERC is the proper and most appropriate Committee to address revisions or modifications to the Appendix 1 SWF is evident from the fact that the EERC is a Committee which functions at a provincial and not merely the local College level. The Appendix 1 SWF indicates that "this form will be used within all Colleges in the assignment of teacher workloads." Contrary to the submissions of both counsel, reference to the SWF is not limited to Article 11.01 and 11.02. The SWF is also referred to in Article 8.04 (b) (which deals with reduction in teacher or work assignments to facilitate assistance to employees and the Union local in the administration of the Collective Agreement). More significantly, the SWF is referred to in the March 31,2004 Letter of Understanding entitled "Re: Workload Task Force" appended to the Collective Agreement. This Letter of Understanding establishes a joint task force comprised of an equal number of representatives appointed by the Union and the College Compensation and Appointments Council for the Colleges, and gives to that task force the function to "... discuss and examine the following issues relating to the assignment of work to full- time faculty under Article 11" a number of matters including "the Standard Workload Form." In our view this reference to the SWF in the Letter of Understanding is again indicative of the "provincial" nature of the SWF and underscores that a grievance with respect to the format of the SWF, if considered as a "workload" issue, falls within the purview of Article 11.02 A 6 (b) as a grievance "other than 11.01 and 11.02" We have therefore concluded that we have jurisdiction to determine the grievance and dismiss the College's preliminary motion. However, with respect to the merits of the grievance, we have concluded that the grievance must be dismissed. In our view the proper route for modification or revision of the Appendix 1 SWF is the EERC. That is evident from the language of the Appendix 1 Form itself, the provincial nature of the form, and its inclusion as a matter for discussion and examination by the provincial Workload Task Force. The EERC is not a decision-making body (Article 9.03 (F) but may make recommendations, a matter eminently sensible when dealing with a form that has province-wide application. [We note parenthetically that either party may have the SWF dealt with by the EERC (Article 9.03 C). In the instant case it was the College which initiated the use of the electronic computerized SWF, but there is nothing in the Collective Agreement which precludes the Union from referring issues surrounding the SWF to the EER~. In the absence of agreement by the Id parties, the EERC can't address items that are the subject of a grievance (Article 9.03 E) so that discussion should be initiated before the filing of grievances.] However, with the exception of one of the three differences or areas of concern identified by the Union as enumerated above, we have concluded that there has not been a revision to the Appendix 1 SWF. Instead, there has been a translation of a paper form into its electronic or computerized format. The Appendix 1 SWF has not been changed or revised, it has been transferred from a paper to a computer format. It has been adapted or fitted to an electronic computerized format which conforms with the paper form. While the Union's position in this grievance is premised on its assertion that the SWF has been revised and changed, we simply do not agree with that premise. With the exception of the one instance noted below, the SWF has not been revised, or amended. It has not been modified so much as it has been translated from paper to electronic format. The translation from paper to the computer may have resulted in a different "look" to the SWF, but increasing the size of a box, eliminating lines, or using a drop-down menu to check off classification status has not revised, modified or changed the SWF. These cosmetic differences are no different than, for example, using a different size font, or different size paper, to insure the form "fits" on two pages rather than the three pages found in the bound version of the Collective Agreement. There has not been any revision, or ]? amendment to the substantive information presented, or the manner and sequence in which it is presented, when the paper form was translated into this electronic, computerized format. The only exception is the third difference referred to, namely, the addition of the words "Workload Hour(s)" to the form. This does represent a revision, modification, amendment or change to the Appendix 1 SWF. Words have been added to the form. This revision however is de minimis and amounts to nothing more than a recitation of the applicable substantive provision of the Collective Agreement. Pursuant to Article 11.01 J 1 voluntary overtime by a teacher can't exceed one teaching contact hour or three total workload hours. The addition of the words "Workload Hour(s)" on the electronic SWF therefore merely confirms this substantive provision and covers the only possible alternatives with respect to voluntary overtime in the current Collective Agreement. The Union itself was unable to articulate how, under the current Collective Agreement, voluntary overtime work by a teacher could be calculated in any other fashion. As College counsel noted, this preprinted addition merely saves someone the time of writing in the words. As the addition of the words "Workload Hour(s)" merely confirms the substantive provision of the current Collective Agreement, the addition of 18 these words onto the computerized SWF must be viewed in a "de minimis" fashion. Obviously, if the applicable provisions of the current Collective Agreement are changed, the addition of these words may mean that the computerized, electronic SWF no longer complies with the Collective Agreement. However, as things stand, the addition of these words are de minimis changes which do not warrant either a declaration that the Collective Agreement has been violated, or a direction to the College to use only the Appendix 1 SWF. For all of these reasons the grievance is dismissed. Dated at Mississauga at this day 22nd of November, 2005. avie Chair I concur/! eli~ent r~o~(~( i<..~l(.,(" Ronald J. Kelly - Union Nominee I concur I I...~o8~,~ ,'c O' ¢~ ~ ,,or Richard O'Connor - Employer Nominee This form will be used within all Colleges in the assignment of teacher workloads. It is understood that this form may require revision by the EERC APPENDIX I STANDARD WORKLOAD FORM Collie Dept. Teacher Probationa~ ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Full-~me / ( ) Pa~iaI-Load / ( ) Pa~-~me / ( ) Sessional Coordinator: ( ) One Step / ( ) Two Step / ( ) not applicable Period Covered by SWF From To Coupe / Subj~ Proration Evaluation ~k I~fificafion Refer~cesto ~11.01'11.01 11.01 11.01'11.01 11.01 11.01 11.01 11,01 11.01 11.01, 11.01 Coll~ve Agr~t ~ B & C:, D O D D D E E E E F D,F,G Weekly Totals Preparation Hours / Subject = Factor X Teaching Contact Hours Evaluation F~:lback Hours / Subiect = Factor X Class Size X Teaching Contact Hours Number of different course preparations Number of different sections Numl~ of langua~ of instruction ~4 ~t of Summary of Weekly Totals ruire Assigned Teaching Contact Hours I week Preparation Hours / week Evaluation Feedback Hours / week Complementary Hours (allowance) / week (Minimum $) Complementary Hours (assigned) / week ------- ~ Total this period SWF 1 Accumulated Totals to SWF Period End Date Teaching Teaching Contact Hours Contac~ Days Weeks Balance from previous SWF Total this period SWF Total to end date Complementary Functions for Academic Year Description Weekly Attributed Hours - ~~,:**- - .~ .;~.,*. Dates of Discussion of Proposed Workload: ==":,~- .2' :~.,. "~' '~ Date SWF R~eived by Facul~ Member: ~..._~,,.~. ' '~ Supewim~s Commen~: , .~ ~.~ ~ ;: .... ~ Su~isoes Signature: Date: Facul~ Membe~ Commen~: ~Olfi: ff no~ in ,~m~m~nt with th~ total workload, ~m~r mu~ ~o indi~t~ in writin~ wi~in thr~ d~ from the d~te i. Facul~ Members Signa~m: Date: [' ( ) M~ual A~mement of ~si~ned Workload ~ { } ~ro~ ~orkload r~f~r~ to ~orkload Resolution ~rbitrator ~ In acco~ance wi~ A~icle 11.01 J 2 ove~ime will be compensat~ at the rate of 0.1% o~ annual regular ~la~. I h~mb~ ~ to on~ I~hin~ ~on~ ~our or . ::" ~ ,.:;:~ ~ STANDARD WORKLOAD FORM " ST, LAWRENCE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ART8 AND TECHNOLOGY School Of H~Jrnan S, tudles (HUMS) T'eacher Name:, ID: Pmbalionary: No Classification: FT Coordinator- Step: 1 T'erm: 1051 Periods Covered by SWF: Jan 10, 2005. Apr 29, 2005 Campus: Brockvllle Course/Subj. ' Asgn. L PREPARATION EVALUATION FEEDBACK Com;)lementary ICentiflcation HoursTCh gn TYPeI Factor AttributedlAdditionalHours Attributed Classl Type [size Factor [Attributed Allow IAsgn'd -I=~eferences to 11.01- Article 11.01 Article 11.01 Collective B and C D D I D D E ! E E 1 E F D, F, Agreement i , ~RTS 9 3.00 E NW 1.1000 3.30 0.00 32 EP 0.0300 2.88 0.00 0.00 Weekly Totals 3.00 3.30 0.00 2.88 0.00 0.00 Preparation Hours/Subject -- Factor* Teaching Contact Hours Evaluation Feedback Hours/Subject --- Factor * Class size ° Teaching Contact Hours · Number of Different Course Preparations 4 Number of Different Sections 4 Number of Languages of Instruction I Summary of Weekly Total Assigned Teaching Contact Hours 3.00 Preparation Hours/week 3.30 Evaluation Feedback Hours/week 2.88 Complementary Hours (Allowance)/Week (Minimum 5) 34.01 Complementary Hours (Assigned)/Week 0.00 TOTAL THIS PERIOD S.W.F, 43.19 . , STANDARD WORKLOAD FORM ST. LAWRENCE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY School Of Human Studies (HUMS) Teacher Name: ID: Probaflonmy: No Classification: FT Co-ordinator- Step: 1 Term: 1051 Periods Covered by SWF: Jan 10, 2005 - Apr 29, 2005 Campus: Brockville Accumulated Totals to S.W.F. Period End Date Teaching Contact HRS Contact Days Teaching Weeks Balance From Previous S.W. 165 75 15 Total ~ls Period S.W.F. 45 75 15 Total to End Date 210 150 30 COMPLEMENTARY FUNCTIONS FOR ACADEMIC YEAR Description Weekly Attributed Hours RTN - Routine Allowance 2.00 ADM - Normal Administrative Tasks 3.00 (B0301) CO - Co-ordlnatorship 8.00 WG - Workload Monitoring Group 2.00 HS - Health & Safety 2.00 CESC - College Employment Stability 1.50 UB - Union Business ~ ,../1...~5.5_!..~ TOTAL 34.01 Dates of Discussion of Proposed Workload: Date SWF Received by Faculty Member: Supervisor's Comments: .~ ~.~C ~ ~.[~.~,~('~ ~*(. ,,j.... . ~y~_ ~. .c..,/ Supervisor', Signature: '"~ ~," ~ ~(~ ..L.../' Date: Faculty Member's Comments: NOTE: If not in agreement with the total workload, the Faculty Member must so Indicate in writing within three days from the date of receipt of the SWF and return a copy to the Supervisor. Faculty Member's Signature: .. Date: ( ) Mutual Agreement of Assigned Workload ( ) Proposed Workload referred to College Workload Monitoring Group ( ) Proposed Workload referred to College Workload Resolution Arbitrator Voluntary Overtime Agreement In accordance Article 11.01 J 2 overtime will be compensated at the rate of 0,1% of annual salary. · I..h. er.e..b..y_..agree- to .one Teaching Contact Hour or ............. Workload Hour(s),- ...... Faculty Member's Signature Date: ' ONTARIO COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS · .-- AND TECHNOLOGY ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT " BETWEEN: '.· '.-'-~ COLLEGE COMPENSATION AND APPOINTMENTS COUNCIL : .... FOR THE COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY · AND: ..... ,~, ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE : .,-~ EMPLOYEES UNION , '~""'" (FOR ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES) .... EFFECTIVE FROM: SEPTEMBER 1, 2003 ...... TO: AUGUST 31, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix VI Part-Time Service ............ ... Article ............................................. Page Letters ........................................ 1. Recognition ....................................... 1 Employment Equity ......................... [] ~ Article 11.08 ............................. '-- 2. Staffing ........................................... 1 Access to the Salary Schedule Maximum ...... .. 3. Relationship ....................................... 2 Cumulative Sick Leave Plans .................. 4. No Discrimination ................................... 3 i Sick Leave Credit Transfers ................ · ·, 5. No Strike and No Lock-out ........................... 4 Sick Leave Credits - Buyout .................. 6. Management Functions .............................. 5 7. Union/College Committee (Local). .5 i ~ Short Term Disability Plan - St. Lawrence College, .................... Long-Term Disability Plan .................... 8. Union Business ..................................... 7 Displacement of Part-Time Employees ......... 9. Employee/Employer Relations Committee ............... 9 i Ontario Health Insurance Plan ............... 10. Union Deduction .................................. 11 Same Sex Spouse Benefit Coverage ..... . ...... 11. Workload ........................................ 11 . New or Merged College .................... 12. Tuition Subsidy .................................... 24 Salary Issue ............................... 13. Copyright ........................................ 25 mill -- College Relations Commission Information Servic~ 14. Salaries .......................................... 25 IBI! '~ Advisory Committee ........................ 15. Vacations ......................................... 31 ~ Kaplan Award ............................ 16. Holidays ......................................... 32 m Expedited Arbitration Process ............... 17. Short-Term Disability Plan ........................... 32 t ...... -:' Grievance Scheduling ....................... 18. Long-Term Disability Plan ........................... 34 ~ Return-to-Work ........................... 19. Other Insurance Plans .............................. 35 ~ Qualifications Review ...................... 20. Professional Development Leave ..................... 39 Workload Task Force ................. ...... 21. Leaves of Absence ................................. 41 "' Alternative Insurance Plan for Retirees...' ..... r 22. Pregnancy and Parental Leave ....................... 43 .... Central Registry ...................... : ..... 23. Prepaid Leave Plan ................................ 46 --- Classification Plans .............................. 24. Health and Safety ................................. 50 ~ .... Index ....................................... -- - 25. Reimbursement for Automobile Expenses ............. 50 26. Partial-Load Employees ............................ 51 27. Job Security ...................................... 62 ~ ·. 28. Employment Stability .............................. 77 29. Extraordinary Financial Exigency ..................... 81 30. Employee Displacements Through Technological Change. 82 31. Personnel Records ................................. 83 32. Grievance Procedures .............................. 84 ~.~' 33. Expedited Arbitration Process ....................... 34. General 91 .'ii" ~'~ 35. Definitions ...................................... 91 36. Duration ......................................... 92 Appendix I Standard Workload Form ............... 94 ,.~. · .... Appendix II Joint Educational ~' · Qualifications Subcommittee ............ Appendix III Dental Plan ........................... '~' Appendix IV Joint Insurance Committee ............. Appendix V Sessional Employees ................... i iv : !~ .~.- ~ ~..:,, v ............. :.:.~~}" .......... ........... ...........:: .. :. ~.,.,,....,.. ~, ~-~ :!':".,. : .-. ~~;!-::4 ~ ~,~'~;.,;~:~:'-~;~'~',~:;'?.~: .~ ~~-_~:i ."" · .'- ": - 'i .' ' . :. :':' .':;!):? . .,"..':~.~ . ..,'. -':'~'~' :- .' i[l~t_~,~,. - . ~ . .. . ~~,~,~;~.~,~-~-.~.~..~.. ,~,,,y~,,,, ....