HomeMy WebLinkAboutGorman 91-05-17 BETWEEN :
ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS FOR COLLEGES
OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
(CENTENNIAL COLLEGE)
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
(FOR ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES)
- GRIEVANCE OF E. GORMAN
90D271
BOARD:
MARTIN TEPLITSKY, Q.C.
ROBERT J. GALLIVAN
(College Nominee)
ED SEYMOUR
(Union Nominee)
APPEARANcEs:
On behalf of the Union: D. Eady
On behalf of the Employer: C. G. Riggs, Q.C.
Hearing held May 16th. 1991
AWARD
The facts giving rise to this grievance are not in
dispute. The grievor has 11 1/2 years service at Centennial
College. Prior thereto he had 5 years service at Sheridan
College. The total is obviously greater than 15 years. If,
therefore, he may total his service at both Colleges, then, he is
entitled to the benefit provided in the Letter of Intent found at
pg. 92 of the Collective Agreement. For convenience, I set it out
in its entirety.
"Re: Access to the Salary Scale Maximum
The parties reaffirm their on-going commitment to the
quality of teaching in the CAAT system. The parties
have agreed to the establishment of an In-Service
Teacher Training Certificate Program in a modularized
format which provides accessibility to the employees
at each college. The program is being offered by
Confederation College as host institution, and an
agreement has been entered into by the Council,OPSEU
and the host institution in that regard.
The objectives, curriculum delivery and length of the
program will be developed by the task force
(established under the previous Collective
Agreement), and shall have regard for the accrued
experience of CAAT teachers including teacher
training courses and programs completed.
Employees who have fifteen (15) years or more of
service and whose maximum Step is currently below
Step 16 and who enroll and participate in the program
shall receive (once only) an immediate one (1) step
salary progression, to a maximum of Step 16 and shall
maintain that Step upon maintaining satisfactory
performance in the program.
3
Employees who successfully complete the program shall
be entitled to progress to Step 16."
Mr. Eady submitted that because the parties to the Letter
of Intent are the "Council of Regents" and "OPSEU", and that the
task force is established by these parties and that the programme
is run for the benefit of all colleges and employees, service
means service in the bargaining unit, i.e. service at any college.
He also submitted that the "policy" or "intention" of the
parties as reflected in the Letter was better served by giving
"service" the meaning contended for.
Finally, he referred to specific provisions of the
Collective Agreement, to illustrate that where the parties
intended to limit service to se~wice at the college, they
expressly provided words of limitation.
Mr. Riggs, on the other hand, submitted that in every case
where the parties intended to include service with a different
employer, the agreement makes specific provision.
He also submitted that the employer is not the council of
Regents and that the grievor's service is with the college by whom
he is employed. The ordinary meaning of "service" is length of
employment with a particular employer.
4
In my opinion, it does not assist in the interpretation of
the subject Letter of Intent to examine different references in
the Collective Agreement which are perfectly clear. In other
words, the fact that the parties expressly provided in the
Collective Agreement whether service at another college or for
another employer does or does not count, does not assist in
determining what service means in the Letter of Intent.
I am also not assisted by speculation as to "policy" or
"intent". This is not a statute. It is a bargain between the
parties.
In construing their bargain, the literal meaning of words
should be used, unless an absurdity would result.
In this case, no absurdity results if service is limited
to service with the employer. I recognize that no absurdity
results if service includes service with other colleges.
The ordinary meaning of service is service with the
employer. It does not ordinarily include service with other
employers. The various colleges are separate employers.
In the result, the grievance must be dismissed.
5
In the result, the grievance must be dismissed.
DATED the 17th day of May, 1991.
MARTTN TEPLITSKY,//~.~C.
Chairman
ROBERT ~. GALLIVAN
College~Nominee
ED SEYMOUR
Union Nominee