HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 05-05-10IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ST. LAWRENCE COLLEGE
(the “Employer”)
- and -
OPSEU LOCAL 419
(the“Union”)
Arbitration Board Order with Respect to
Three Grievances Brought by OPSEU
(OPSEU File Nos. 2002-0417-0015, 0016, 0032)
A W A R D
Board of Arbitration: Paula Knopf, Chair
Richard O’Connor, Employer Nominee
Sherril Murray, Union Nominee
Appearances:
For the Employer Catherine Peters, Counsel
For the Union Paul Champ, Counsel
A hearing in this matter was held in Kingston on March 8, 2005.
This is yet another case concerning the application of Article 27.12 at this
College. The parties came before this Board of Arbitration on November 10, 2003
to deal with related matters and a decision was issued that includes the following
declarations:
2. We declare that the “27.12 List” and its timely
delivery is critical to both parties for the proper
administration and operation of the Collective
Agreement.
3. We declare that the Union shall comply with the
following procedures for the purposes of making a
request for rationale under Article 7:
x
Requests shall be in writing and shall detail
people for whom the rationale is being
requested.
x
The College shall provide the Article 7 rationale
within 14 days of the Union’s request.
x
Upon receipt of same, the Union shall have 7
days in which to request a meeting with the
College to discuss the rationale.
x
The meeting shall take place within 7 days of
the Union’s request.
[Hereinafter the November 10, 2003 Award shall
be referred to as “the original award]
Despite these directions, issues still remain in dispute between the parties
regarding the 27.12 List. The parties accuse each other of non-compliance with
the Collective Agreement and with the Original Award. The Union asserts that the
27.12 Lists that are being delivered are neither accurate nor complete. Further,
the Union complains that the Lists do not contain any information regarding the
assignment of Continuing Education credit courses. The Union also complains
that insufficient rationale is being provided. The Employer asserts that the Union
has not followed the directives to make requests for rationale in accordance with
to paragraph 3 of the Original Award. At the outset of these proceedings, there
was also a dispute between the parties regarding what information, if any, should
2
be included with regard to the assignment of teaching responsibilities to
“contractors” or “third party contractors”. However, in the course of this hearing,
the parties were able to resolve that issue so it shall not be referred to again in
this Award.
The principle provisions of the Collective Agreement that are relevant to
this case are:
Personnel Lists
27.12
During the last week of September,
January and May the College shall notify the Union
Local President of all personnel covered by the
Agreement hired or terminated since the last
notification, together with the classification, location
and Division or Department concerned. At such times,
the College shall also include notification of hirings of
personnel assigned to teach credit courses including,
in particular, sessional appointments.
. . . . . . . . . .
General
27.16
Extension and Continuing Education programs
and courses which are not included in the regular
assignment of full-time employees are excluded from
the application of this Article for all purposes.
The background giving rise to this case is not in dispute.The parties have
been at loggerheads about staffing and information issues for quite some time.
The parties perceive their respective contractual rights and obligations differently.
The use of non-full time faculty is a sensitive issue that has given rise to many
grievances. In this particular case, the Union is seeking more information than
the College is willing to supply on the 27.12 List. For example, the Union wants
the College to include the names of anyone hired to teach the Continuing
Education credit courses on the List. The College does not believe that the
Collective Agreement requires the inclusion of such information on the List.
However, the College does acknowledge that Continuing Education credit course
assignments are relevant to full-time faculty workload issues and that the
assignment of many such hours to non-full-time faculty might raise issues for the
3
Union concerning other aspects of the Collective Agreement. The College simply
asserts that the 27.12 List is not required to include this information.
Another aspect of the Union’s concerns arises out of the allegation that
the 27.12 Lists that are being delivered are inaccurate and unreliable. Professor
Mary Ann White testified for the Union. She is the Union’s Chief Steward and is
Chair of the Union/College Committee. In addition, she sits on the Workload
Monitoring Committee. The 27.12 List is delivered to her each term. Upon receipt
of the List, she determines who of the named faculty are partial load, part-time or
sessional appointments, and what period they are assigned to teach. Then she
checks the accuracy of the List in various ways that include checking timetables
in classrooms to see if faculty names are posted that do not appear on the List.
When a missing name is discovered, she notifies the College’s Human
Resources Department. Traditionally, she has been advised that the omission is
either because of a “clerical error” or due to the fact that the particular teacher’s
contract had not been received by the Human Resources Department in a timely
enough fashion for it to be included on the most recent 27.12 List. Because
numerous errors have surfaced over the years, Professor White undertakes a
verification process with the delivery of each List. She estimates that the process
takes four to five working days.
Professor White also explained that while the College does provide a
rationale for the appointments on the List, the Union does not consider the
rationales being delivered to be “helpful”. Professor White complained that the
rationales are not specific to individuals. She describes the some of the
rationales as “just a list of reasons” with no ties to the specific appointments. An
example of what the Union is complaining about was delivered by the College:
As requested, the rationale for the use of non full time
faculty as per September 27.12 list.
4
Upon review the identified reasons were: insufficient
work for full time; one semester only activity;
specialized skills; early leave replacements for AB,
CD, EF and GH; IJ sabbatical replacement for KL*;
and nonrecurring work for the last year of Fast Track
Nursing.
By far the largest area of non full time activity is in
Fast Track. This program is in its final academic
semester.
* Initials have been substituted for the faculty names
The Union has not made any requests for meetings in order to obtain an
explanation for this rationale as could be arranged pursuant to the Collective
Agreement or paragraph 3 of the Original Award. Ms. White’s explanation for not
requesting any of these meetings is simply “we’ve not found it useful to have
meetings because we don’t get any additional information.”
In response to the Union’s evidence, Cindy Bleakney, the College’s
Human Resources Consultant, testified. She explained that the 27.12 List is
compiled manually each term from information taken from the Payroll
Authorizationforms filed with the Human Resources Department by each
Academic Department. Human Resources often does not receive these forms
until after the commencement of a teaching contract. Given the Collective
Agreement’s specification that a 27.12 List has to be delivered during the last
week of September, January and May, names have been inadvertently omitted if
they have not been filed with the Human Resources Department on a timely
basis. Further, due to the fact that the List is generated manually, “clerical” errors
have occurred because hundreds of pieces of paper are involved and the clerk
has other responsibilities to complete at the same time. However, when Ms.
Bleakney becomes aware that an error or omission has occurred, she
immediately notifies the Union about this. The correct information is given and is
then included on the next 27.12 List that is issued. Further, if Ms. Bleakney is
questioned by the Union about an omission, she checks through the records and
5
supplies the Union with all the information that would have been on the 27.12
List.
Ms. Bleakney stressed that the College recognizes that there have been
inaccuracies on the 27.12 Lists, in terms of clerical errors and because of the late
delivery of information from the various academic departments. However, she
stresses that the number of errors over the years are minor given the volume of
material that is covered. She spoke of there being on a few identifiable errors
with each List and only three omissions in the last list that was delivered.
Nonetheless, she has tried to address the issue of inaccuracies by dedicating
one person to the 27.12 List’s creation and encouraging the Academic
Departments to forward information to Human Resources on a timelier basis.
She has also tried to address the Union’s other concerns by providing “more
meaningful information” by way of “rationale” when requested. She
acknowledges that there may be other or better ways of generating the 27.12
List, but she stresses that with the resources and personnel available to the
College, the present system is “the only way” they can operate.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
Submissions of the Union
The Union submits that this case focuses on the second sentence of
Article 27.12. It was said that this covers information regarding bargaining unit
work or potential bargaining unit work. It was also submitted that the term “credit
courses” means that there must be notification of personnel hired to teach credit
courses in regular departments as well as Continuing Education. Acknowledging
that Article 27.16 has an impact on this case, it was argued that all credit
Continuing Education courses that can be assigned and included as part of the
6
body of work of a bargaining unit member amount to the kind of work that should
be listed pursuant to Article 27.12.
Further, the Union denies the allegation that it is not in compliance with
the original Award. It was submitted that while paragraph 3 of the Original Award
contemplates a meeting following the request for a rationale under Article 7, such
a meeting was said to be “optional”. It was argued that if the Union does not
request a meeting, then paragraph 4 of the Original Award “comes into
operation”. It was submitted that if no meeting is requested, the time limit then
runs from the delivery of the list. In essence, the Union argues that it should not
be required to request a meeting.
Counsel for the Union stressed that the College has failed to comply with
the Collective Agreement because it has repeatedly delivered inadequate
rationale and inaccurate or incomplete 27.12 Lists. The Union acknowledges that
it cannot expect “perfection” in terms of accuracy. However, it stresses that the
College has to treat Article 27.12 as a “contractual obligation” and be required to
take steps to improve upon the accuracy of its Lists. For example, it was
suggested that the College should be ordered to insist that the departments
provide the relevant information to Human Resources on a timely basis or come
up with a different method to ensure accuracy. It was stressed that the purpose
of Article 27.12 is to allow the Union to protect the integrity of the bargaining unit.
Unless the Union is able to rely upon the accuracy of the lists, it was said that the
Collective Agreement was not being honoured. In support of its submissions, the
Union relied on the decision in the George Brown College and OPSEU,
unreported decision of Knopf Board dated December 17, 2004.
Turning to the issue of whether the Continuing Education credit course
assignments should be included on the 27.12 List, counsel for the Union argued
that grievances filed under Article 2 can determine whether something falls within
the regular assignment of a full-time member of the bargaining unit. However, for
7
the purposes of compiling the Article 27.12 List, credit courses in Continuing
Education should simply be included on the List. It was said that if Articles 27.12
and 27.16 are interpreted narrowly to allow the College to omit the Continuing
Education credit courses, then the Union would be deprived of important notice
about information that impacts on its rights under Article 2 of the Collective
Agreement. The Union argues that if a Continuing Education credit course is
regularly in the assignment of a bargaining unit member, it should be included on
the List. Conceding that there may be real questions of whether a particular
course may be a Continuing Education credit course, the Union argued; “Don’t
head the Union off at the pass, let it at least have the necessary information.” In
support of its argument, the Union relied on the following cases which deal with
Continuing Education credit courses as part of the “body of work” that may be of
interest to the Union: George Brown College and Ontario Public Service
Employees Union (Benhaggai Grievance), unreported decision dated February
16, 1993 (Mitchnick Board); Fanshawe College and Ontario Public Service
Employees Union (Union Policy Grievance 99C254), unreported decision dated
October 3, 2002 (Brown Board); George Brown College and Ontario Public
Service Employees Union (Use of Partial Load and Part-time Employees),
unreported decision dated January 16, 2003 (Devlin Board); and Re Algonquin
College and Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 415 (2001), 100
th
L.A.C. (4) 234 (Knopf).
By way of remedy, the Union seeks a declaration that the Collective
Agreement has been violated. The Union does not ask the Board of Arbitration to
tell the College how to comply with the contract. Simply, the Union asks that the
College be required to make efforts to be in compliance. The Union also seeks
damages for the hours it has spent trying to confirm the accuracy of the lists and
for the “lost opportunity to consult”. In support of this, the Union relies on the
following cases: Kingston General Hospital and Canadian Union of Public
Employees, Local 1974, unreported decision dated November 12, 2002 (Devlin
Board); Re Canadian Airlines International Ltd. and International Association of
8
th
Machinists and Aerospace Workers(1999), 82 L.A.C. (4) 81 (Ready); and Re
Burrard Yarrows Corporation, Vancouver Division, and International Brotherhood
of Painters,, Local 138 (1981), 30 L.A.C. (2d) 331 (Christie).
Submissions of the Employer
Counsel for the Employer argued that Article 27.12 does not require the
delivery of a“list”. Instead, it requires that the College notify the Union of the
information specified in order that the Union can “police the Collective Agreement
and ensure compliance with Article 2.” It was said that it was not unreasonable to
expect the Union to have to expend an effort in order to carry out that function.
While the Union may wish to have more information, the College argues that the
Collective Agreement does not require the College to provide anything more than
is set out in the Article. Further, it was stressed that once a List is delivered to the
Union, the Union is required to follow the specific processes set out in Article 7
and the original Award between these parties if it wants further information or
rationale. These processes were said to give the Union the right to make
representations to the College, but nothing more.
The College asserts that the evidence before the Board of Arbitration
establishes that the Union has been successful in obtaining the information
mandated by Article 27.12. The College admits that mistakes have been made
that may have affected the accuracy of the Lists. However, it was stressed that
the errors have been inadvertent, insignificant in terms of the percentages, and
that they have all been corrected as soon as humanly possible. It was stressed
that the College has never taken a “cavalier approach” to the delivery of any
information. Acknowledging that there may be better ways of transmitting the
information, it was said that the College has done the best it can given the
resources available. It was stressed that this Board of Arbitration has no
jurisdiction to order the College to deliver the information in any particular way.
9
Turning to the issue of the Continuing Education credit courses, counsel
for the Employer conceded that there may well be issues between the parties
regarding what constitutes a credit course. Further, it was acknowledged that the
second sentence of Article 27.12 on its own suggests that a person hired to
teach any credit courses would be within “the universe of the 27.12 names”.
However, it was submitted that Article 27.16 requires that people teaching the
Continuing Education credit courses would be “subtracted” from the 27.12
“universe.” It was said that the clear language of the Collective Agreement must
lead to the conclusion that anyone hired as a non-regular full-time employee, i.e.,
assigned to Continuing Education, would not be included in the 27.12 List. It was
suggested that the only Continuing Education courses covered by Article 27.12
would be those faculty who have Continuing Education credit courses as part of
their regular assignment. It was stressed that Article 27.16 draws no distinction
between credit and non-credit courses and therefore operates as a broad
exclusion. It was suggested that if the Union succeeds in this case, then all
Continuing Education would have to be included in the 27.12 List, and this would
effectively read Article 27.16 out of the Collective Agreement. It was also pointed
out that the Union’s rights can be protected because the Union has access to
information regarding the assignment of Continuing Education credit programs to
bargaining unit members through their SWF’s. In support of its argument, the
Employer relies on the following cases:Fanshawe College and Ontario Public
Service Employees Union (Union Grievance - #88A493), unreported decision
dated May 4, 1989 (Swan); Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 562 (Union Grievance),
unreported decision dated May 31, 1993 (Schiff); Ontario Public Service
Employees Union and George Brown College (Grievance of Benhaggai),
unreported decision dated February 16, 1993 (Mitchnick); Sheridan College of
Applied Arts and Technology and Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Grievance of Margaret Ellis), unreported decision dated May 30, 1983 (Brown
Board); and Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and
10
Technology (Conestoga College) and Ontario Public Service Employees Union,
unreported decision dated August 25, 1983 (Palmer).
The College also asserts that it has complied with the Collective
Agreement’s requirement to provide a rationale to the Union. It was argued that
the Union has failed to show that there’s been evidence of a breach of the
Collective Agreement. The Employer relies on the decision between OPSEU and
George Brown College(Knopf), supra.
Stressing that the grievances should be dismissed, the Employer argues,
in the alternative, that nothing warrants the exceptional remedies the Union is
seeking in this case. It was said that compensation should only be awarded if
there had been a “repeated flaunting” of a right to consult. Further, it was said
that the Union has no right to claim that it has lost the opportunity to consult
because it has not requested a meeting. It was stressed that the College has
responded to every question that the Union has raised and volunteered
information whenever errors were discovered. Further, it was stressed that the
Union should be made to comply with the provisions of the original Award and
that if it wants rationale, it should follow the provisions of paragraph 3. It was said
that the meeting process set out in that Award was “designed to give the parties
an opportunity to discuss rationale in order to avoid grievances.”
THE DECISION
The submissions of the parties make it clear that they both understand the
purpose of Article 27.12. The Article is designed to ensure that the Union is
provided with specific information are critical points in the academic year so that
it can monitor the Employer’s hiring decisions. The Union’s interest in this
information is to ensure compliance with Article 2 and to preserve the integrity of
the bargaining unit. As the parties were advised in the Original Award issued by
this Board of Arbitration in paragraph 2;“The‘27.12 List’ and its timely delivery is
11
critical to both parties for the proper administration and operation of the
Collective Agreement.” It now appears that the parties require further and more
specific guidance regarding the application of this provision.
The grievances before this Board of Arbitration now deal with four specific
issues that will be dealt with in turn.
1. Do the “clerical errors” and inaccuracies that occur with the 27.12
Lists being delivered by the College mean that the Employer has
failed to comply with the Collective Agreement?
The evidence shows that there are clerical errors and omissions on the
27.12 Lists being delivered to the Union by this College. However, the
inaccuracies or omissions are not large in number. Nonetheless, the cumulative
effect of these inaccuracies has been that the Union has lost confidence in the
information. Accordingly, the Union has undertaken the laborious exercise of
confirming the Lists and/or seeking out inaccuracies. This is unfortunate because
time is precious. Further, the verification exercise is a major signal of the lack of
trust that the Union has in the College’s administration.
It is important that the Personnel Lists mandated by Article 27.12 be
accurate. This Board of Arbitration has no power to tell the Employer how to
ensure accuracy. However, the timely delivery of accurate lists are a contractual
obligation under Article 27.12. All relevant College personnel must be reminded
of this requirement and impressed with the importance of compliance. The
Human Resources Department is commended for the fact that it brings
information to the Union’s attention and responds to questions whenever
inaccuracies or omissions are discovered. However, the evidence also shows
that when information is filed late by the academic departments after the deadline
for delivery of the 27.12 Lists, that information may not be transmitted to the
Union until the next publication of the List the following term. When that occurs, it
is not acceptable. The information mandated by Article 27.12 must be delivered
12
during the last weeks of September, January and May. A few updates delivered
within a few days thereafter may be tolerable. Indeed, the Union has indicated
that it does not expect perfection. However, failure to ensure accurate lists
exposes the College to liability for its breach of the Collective Agreement.
On the evidence before us, we do not see any deliberate or major problems with
regard to accuracy. Nor is there any evidence that the College is attempting to
avoid its obligations under Article 27.12. The numbers of inaccuracies are
relatively small and the Human Resources office is diligent about attempting to
correct any errors that come to light. In these circumstances, we trust that the
College will continue make every effort to ensure that timely and accurate lists
are delivered to the Union as set out above. We also trust that the academic
departments will be alerted to their responsibilities in ensuring contractual
compliance. If the numbers of inaccuracies escalate and put the legitimacy of
the information contained on the List in question, the College will be exposed to
liability for damages for a breach of this important provision in the Collective
Agreement. However, on the evidence in this case, no such remedial order is
called for at this time.
2. Does the rationale the College is providing to the Union comply with
the Collective Agreement and/or the original Award between the
parties?
Article 27.12 does not tell the College to include any “rationale” for
personnel decisions. The College’s obligation to explain its rationale for “its
application of Article 2, Staffing, or 27.05(iii)” decisions arises under the mandate
of the Article 7 Union/College Committee (Local) [UCC]:
7.02
A Committee of three members appointed by the College or
Campus officials will meet with the Union College or Campus
Committee at a mutually agreed time and place provided that either
party requests and gives at least seven days prior notice
accompanied by an agenda of matters proposed to be discussed.
It is agreed that matters to be the subject of discussion at meetings
include:
13
. . . . . . .
(vi) if requested by the Union Local, the College shall
explain its rationale for its application of Article 2,
Staffing, or 27.05 (iii). In particular, it will consider any
representations which the Union Local may make with
respect to the assigning of work on a full-time or a
sessional, partial-load or part-time basis, and with
respect to the feasibility of assigning work on a full-
time basis rather than on a sessional, partial-load or
part-time basis.
These particular parties are also bound by paragraph 3 of the Original Award
bears repeating at this juncture:
The Union shall comply with the following procedures
for the purposes of making a request for rationale
under Article 7:
x
Requests shall be in writing and shall detail
people for whom the rationale is being
requested.
x
The College shall provide the Article 7 rationale
within 14 days of the Union’s request.
x
Upon receipt of same, the Union shall have 7
days in which to request a meeting with the
College to discuss the rationale.
x
The meeting shall take place within 7 days of
the Union’s request.
Therefore, the requirement for this College to provide rationale arises through the
operation of both the Collective Agreement and the Original Award. While some
colleges do voluntarily include a statement of rationale for the specific
appointments on the 27.12 list itself, there is no requirement to do so. The
Collective Agreement simply requires the rationale to be delivered “if requested
by the Union Local” (Article 7.02(vi)). The context for all this communication is the
Union/College Committee contemplated under Article 7.01. This is a local
committee comprised of three members appointed by the College and three
members of the bargaining unit. Accordingly, the parties have devised a system
14
whereby information can be exchanged, the Union is told of the rationale for
personnel decisions, and the Union is given an opportunity to make
representations with respect to the feasibility of assigning more work on a full-
time basis, rather than on a sessional, partial load or part-time basis. Therefore
the Collective Agreement provides a way to facilitate communication between the
parties and the forum for such communication. The difficulty with the Union’s
grievance in this particular case is that it complains about the rationale that it is
receiving from this College, however the Union has not invoked the opportunities
available to it either under the Collective Agreement or the original Award to
obtain the rationale it seeks.
Labour arbitration is a necessary forum for the resolution of problems.
However, it should be used as a last resort and invoked only after the steps in
the collective agreement have been exhausted. Additionally, arbitration should
not be available to this particular Local until and unless it has availed itself of the
procedures set forth under paragraph 3 of the Original Award. These are not
simply “opportunities” or “options” for the Union to choose to invoke or ignore. It
is not appropriate for the Union to simply assume that the meetings will be of no
avail and thereby bypass the processes available under the Collective
Agreement or the Original Award. Simply put, the Union has no right to complain
about the sufficiency of rationale it has received from this College until and
unless it has attempted to utilize the procedures available to it.
Accordingly, insofar as the specific rationale which has been filed in
evidence in this case, we decline to rule on its sufficiency because of the
conclusions set forth above. However, we do direct the parties to the decision in
George Brown College (Knopf), supra, at pages 37-44. We hope that those
paragraphs remind and/or instruct the parties of the nature of rationale that can
be expected. We also remind the College that rationale must be available with
regard to the assignment of any individual full-time, sessional, partial load or part-
time work.
15
3. Is the College obliged to include Continuing Education credit
courses in the 27.12 List?
The Union asks this Board of Arbitration to order that the College must
include Continuing Education credit course assignments on the 27.12 List. The
reason for the request is that the Union says these courses are relevant to
workload issues, and potentially relevant to Article 2 grievances. We can
understand the Union’s desire for this information. Indeed, the cases cited by the
Union recognize that Continuing Education credit courses can be factored into
the SWF’s because they are relevant to workload. That is why the Union wants
the information on the 27.12 List.
That may be an understandable desire on the part of the Union. However,
that is not what the Collective Agreement currently requires. Article 27.12 cannot
be read alone. It also must be read in conjunction with Article 27.16. Article 27.16
is clear that Continuing Education courses that are not included in regular
assignments of full-time employees are excluded from the application of Article
27,“for all purposes” [emphasis added]. Article 27 includes the Personnel Lists
created pursuant to Article 27.12. Therefore, if the Union’s argument were to
succeed, Article 27.16 would be read out of the Collective Agreement for
purposes of the Personnel Lists and ARticle 27.12. This would grant rights
beyond what the Collective Agreement created to the Union. However, Article
27.16 must be given force and effect. At the same time, it must be read strictly
because it is an exception. It excludes only Continuing Education programs and
courses “which are not included in regular assignment of full-time employees”.
Therefore, if Article 27.12 and 27.16 are read together, they allow that the hiring
of regular full-time employees teaching Continuing Education credit courses must
be included in the 27.12 Lists. The evidence is clear that this College does not
include any Continuing Education credit courses on the 27.12 Lists. However,
27.16 only excludes courses which are not included in the regular full-time
assignment of employees. Therefore, the College is obliged to notify the Union of
16
all hiring of regular full-time employees assigned to teach Continuing Education
credit courses. We so declare.
4. Is the Union entitled to Damages?
The Union is seeking damages for what it describes as the “lost
opportunity” to consult and for the violations of the Collective Agreement. In
appropriate cases, compensation can be awarded where an employer does not
abide by the collective agreement’s requirement to provide information or consult
with the union.
We are mindful of the fact that the Union has experienced frustration
concerning the delivery of the 27.12 Lists. The ongoing nature of the grievances
before this Board of Arbitration and their history are a testament to the fact that
the communication process contemplated by the Collective Agreement has not
been as successfully implemented in this workplace as one would have hoped.
However, given that the Union has not availed itself of the procedures available
through the Union/College Committee or the mechanism provided in the Original
Award, it would be inappropriate to award damages at this time. Our hope is that
the situation giving rise to these grievances will be remedied as a result of the
directions in this Award and that the College will not find itself ina situation where
an award for monetary damages becomes appropriate.
17
This Board of Arbitration remains seized with regard to the
implementation of this Award should the parties require any further assistance.
th
DATED at TORONTO this 10 day of May, 2005.
________________________________
Paula Knopf, Chair
I concurr____”Richard O’Connor”_________
Richard O’Connor, Employer Nominee
I concur – with Addendum attached______”Sherril Murray”_____
Sherril Murray, Union Nominee
18
Addendum
This member agrees in principle with the majority. The difficulty arises with the
employer’s interpretation of “Con Ed”. It is obvious that this college believes that
by delivering courses under the name of “con ed”, they may exempt themselves
from the obligations of the Collective Agreement.
If the college is in compliance with Articles 2, 7 and 27.12, there should be no
challenge to the exclusion of persons hired appropriately in the continuing
education division because credit courses are taught by members of the
bargaining unit.
With regards to references made about neither party complying with Article 7, it
should be noted that the decision referred to by the Chair (George Brown
College) was not issued until after the relevant time frame in this case. However,
it does serve to put those responsible for the hiring of personnel on notice that
they will be required to provide the operational requirement that precluded the
hiring of full time employees.
It should also be noted that these proceedings involving both the Union and the
Human Resources department are primarily the result of the failure of the various
departments to notify HR in a timely fashion. It is unacceptable that the lists are
inaccurate because of “new hires’” inability to submit the appropriate paperwork
in a timely fashion.
Sherril Murray