Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 88-11-16Conceming an arbitration Between: Cambrian College and Ontario Public Service Employees Union UniOn grievanCe concerning Standard Workload Forms Board of Arbitration J. W. Samuels, Chairman D. J. Cameletti, College Nominee J. Herbert, Union Nominee For the Parties Union R. Stoykewych, Counsel M. Lamb, Chief Steward H. Heggie College B. Brown, Counsel S. Pratt Hearing in Sudbury, October 5, 1988 1 The issue in this case is whether, pursuant to Article 4.02(1)(a)'of the collective agreement, the College was obligated to complete additional Standard Workload Forms (SWFs) and give copies to three full-time teachers who took on the additional work of teaching courses which ran from May through August 1987 in post-secondary programs. For purposes of illustration, the parties agreed that we would base our answer on the example of Mr. H. Heggie. Henry Heggie is a full-time teaching master with long seniority at the College. In September 1987, he received a SWF coveting his total workload for the academic year 1986-87. In late May and early June 1987, he agreed to teach several courses over the summer in two post-secondary programs which run right through the summer. These programs are financed by Manpower Canada. Mr. Heggie's teaching ran from late May through August, and involved six hours per week in the classroom. The courses were identical to courses which Mr. Heggie offered during the regular academic year. Mr. Heggie and the College agreed that he would be given a "part-time appointment as an Instructor" for the purpose of teaching these summer courses, and that he would be considered on vacation for the six hours per week of teaching done during May and June. This vacation was "borrowed", and was repaid in July and August by work done at the College outside the teaching of the summer courses. Mr. Heggie was paid $38.25 per hour for the summer teaching. He did not receive and did not request a SWF in respect of this work. The Union filed the grievance when it learned of the teaching done in May and June. The Union argues that the arrangement between Mr. Heggie and the College violates the workload system agreed to in the collective agreement. Article 4 of the collective agreement establishes a comprehensive workload system, which involves, among other elements, a maximum workload which can be assigned to a teacher during the "academic year", a monitoring system to ensure that the maxima are not exceeded, and a dispute resolution 2 system. The "academic year" is defined in Article 4.03 as ten months in duration, generally from September 1 to the following June 30. The heart of the monitoring system is the Standard. Workload Form which must be completed by the College prior to the establishment of a total workload for any teacher, pursuant to Article 4.02(1)(a). The monitoring system involves a College Workload Monitoring Group at each College, which includes Union representation. If a SWF is not completed with respect to certain work done by a teacher, then this work does not get into the monitoring system and the Union does not have an opportunity to consider whether or not the College is violating the workload maximum for this teacher. The College agrees that there is a comprehensive workload system governing a teacher's work during the "academic year", but argues that this summer teaching was not done during Mr. Heggie's "academic year", therefore it is not subject to the workload system. Mr. Heggie was "on vacation" during the six hours per week that he taught in May and June, and he is entitled to take on part-time work during his vacation, including work with the College. It is interesting to note that Mr. Heggie was only considered to be "on vacation" for the six hours per week he actually taught. When did he do the preparation and other incidental tasks related to this classroom time? In our view, the critical question is whether or not Mr. Heggie was really "on vacation" at any time during May and June 1987. And our answer is "No". A "vacation" does not consist of an hour here and an hour there, sprinkled in the midst of working time. The College argument would have us say that, for example, on June 8, Mr. Heggie was working part of his regular "academic year" from 9 AM to 10 AM, then was "on vacation" from 10 AM to noon, and was back at work as part of his regular "academic year" from noon to 5 PM. A "vacation" is a sustained period of time off work. As the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary puts it, a "vacation" is "a period during which there is a formal suspension of activity; one or other part of the 3 year during which the normal functions of law-courts, universities, or schools are suspended; holidays". If we were to accept that the special arrangement with Mr. Heggie was permissible under the collective agreement, and that teachers could be considered "on vacation" for small periods of time throughout the regular "academic year", then the workload system would become meaningless. Every teacher could make a special deal to work more than the maxima provided in the cOllective agreement, by agreeing to "borrow" "vacation" an hour here, a half-hour there, and make up the time during July and August. "Vacation-borrowing" is not unusual at the College. For example, a teacher may be permitted to take "vacation" for a Friday afternoon, in order to expand a weekend. When done on an isolated basis, perhaps one can say that a teacher is "on vacation" for the afternoon. But a systematic collection of hours here and hours there is not a "vacation". In our view, Mr. Heggie was a full-time teacher during May and June 1987. He was never really "on vacation" during these two months. Therefore, any teaching and related activities done in those two months ought to have found its way on to a Standard Workload Form which could be the subject of consideration by the College Workload Monitoring Group. The College violated the collective agreement by failing to complete a Standard Workload Form in respect of Mr. Heggie's teaching in May and June 1987. 4 This is the determination we were asked to make. The Union acknowledged that it did not know whether Mr. Heggie's total workload would have exceeded the maximum allowable, had his May/June teaching been included on a SWF. Done at London, Ontario, this I/,,~day of /~.~/e---/n~. 1988. D. J. Cameletti, ~ollege Nominee 1 IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CAMB~ COT.T.~.GE -AND- ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION IN THE MATTER OF THE UNION GRIEVANCE CONCERNING STANDARD WORKLOAD FORMS DISSENT I have considered the award of the majority and respectfully dissent. My differences with the majority opinion lie in whether Mr. Heggie can be considered to have been on vacation during May and June. My colleagues have reached the conclusion that the six hours per week that Mr. Heggie spent in a part-time teaching role at the College cannot be considered to be "vacation". My colleagues have further expressed the view that vacation is synonymous with "a sustained period of time of work," and (quoting from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)," 'a period during which there is a formal suspension of activity; one or other part of the year during which the normal functions of law- courts, universities, or schools are suspended; holidays.' " I agree that the above definitions reflect generally held views of the term "vacation" but am of the opinion that they are not all inclusive and certainly do not describe every situation of what constitutes a "vacation". In my respectful view, there is nothing improper with the way that Mr. Heggie spent his vacation during May and June. Article 5 of the collective agreement, which deals with vacation entitlement for academic employees of the College, expresses no limitations on how employees are to spend vacations, except that - 2 - the College has the final say over scheduling. Thus, there is no requirement that Mr. Heggie refrain from working, either full- or part-time, in any capacity for any employer, including the College, while on vacation. Nor is there a requirement that he take part or all of his vacation over an extended period of time, such as consecutive days, weeks, or months. Accordingly, in the absence of such restrictions, Mr. Heggie must be properly considered to have been on vacation during May and June. On this basis, I would dismiss the grievance. Dated at Sudbury, Ontario on the 16th day of November, 1988. David Cameletti