HomeMy WebLinkAboutMcKay 92-06-18 FANSHAWE COLLEGE
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
GRIEVANCE OF SANDRAMCKAY
DOARD OF ARBITRATION:
JANE H. DEVLIN CHAIRMAN
DAVID W. GUPTILL COLLEGE NOMINEE
JON MCMANUS UNION NOMINEE
Paul %. Jarv~s~ for the College
Richard R. Stephenson, for the Union
OPSRU FIT,~ NO.: 91C633
DATR OF HEARING: May 4, 1992
LOCATTON OF HRARING: London, Ontario
The issue in this case concerns the placement of the
GrievQr, Sandra McKay, on the salary scale.
The facts which gave rise to the grievance are not in
dispute. The Grievor Joined the full-time faculty of the College
in July of 1984. Prior to that time, she taught on a sessional
and a surplus basis for the College for a period of approximately
4 years. Previous to that, she worked as a legal secretary for
some 17 years.
Upon her appointment to the full-time faculty in July
of 1984, the Grtevor taught English as a Second Language as she
had done when employed on a sessional and a surplus basis. It
was agreed between the parties that the Grievor's experience as a
legal secretary was not relevant to this teaching assignment.
In September of 1986, the Grievor was transferred to
the School of Applied Arts and Business where she taught a
variety of courses to business students. It was agreed that the
Grievpr~s experience as a legal secretary was relevant to this
teaching assignment as well as to a subsequent assignment in the
Language and Communications Division to which the Grlevor was
transferred following a reorganization in the spring of 1987.
2
The grievance, which was filed in January of 1991,
claims that the College failed to credit the Grievor with
relevant occupational experience; namely, her experience as a
legal secretary. It was agreed that if the grievance were to
succeed, any salary adjustment would take effect from November of
1990 and the Union also claimed interest on any retroactivity
payable to the Grievor.
The relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement are
as follows:
Article 3
3.01 The salary scales applicable to full-time employees
shall be as set out in Appendix I attached hereto.
3.02 Determination of starting salaries and progression
within the salary scales shall be in accordance with the
College's Classification Plans dated November 28, 1989, and
the application to certain present employees above the
maximum scale shall continue as set out in the "Guidelines"
starting on page 70, which also set out the terms of the
reference of the Joint Educat~ional Qualification Sub-
Committee.
S~ION !
CLASSIFICATION PLAN FOR PROFESSORS AND
CO~S_~.~I~S AND LI~
Factors
1. Appo~n~t Factor~
&) ~rience: Relevant Teaching/Oc~T~t~onal
Relevant occupational experience generally means full
years of experience in a field, of work related to the
material to be taught or the job to be done, or to some
allied aspect of it. In determining the 'number of years to
be counted, the College hiring must avoid the extremes of
counting either "years of time passed" or "years of entirely
3
non-repetitive experience", and must make a fair assessment
of an applicant's experience.
For example, an applicant who had spent some years as a
sales clerk before qualifying as an engineer should not
expect that sales experience to count as relevant experience
if the person is being hired to teach engineering.
Part-time experience should be totalled only if it
forms part of a regular program of development such as a co-
operative educational program.
Double counting must be avoided. For example, if an
applicant worked as a graduate assistant while pursuing an
advanced degree, the person shall not be given full credit
for both experience and educational time.
Similarly, relevant teaching experience means full
years of teaching experience at a level comparable with the
level required of the applicant. Again, double counting
must be avoided for teaching experience as, for example, a
graduate assistant while pursuing advanced qualifications.
The values to be given for experience are:
- First 5 years: 1 point per year
- Next 9 years: 2/3 point per year
- Next 12 years: 1/2 point per year
B) I~elevant For~l ~ualifications
Formal qualifications are those which constitute the
norm in institutions of post-secondary education in the
Province of Ontario. Only full years of post-secondary
education at successively higher levels, and leading to a
diploma, professional accredition or degree, are recognized.
For example, a graduate of a three-year technology program
in a College would be given 1 1/2 points for each of the
three years, regardless of the length of time actually spent
by the individual in obtaining the diploma.
No credit is to be given for a year of study in which
there.was significant duplication of other studies.
Therefore only the highest qualification will be used in
computation unless the subject areas are from different
disciplines and all relevant to the appointment.
- CAAT diploma or Post-Secondary
Certificate - per year (level) completed: 1 1/2 points
- University Degree - per year (level)
completed: 1 1/2 points
4
(Maximum of 6 years)
- Formal integrated work/study program such
as P.Eng., C.A., C.G.A., C.M.A. (formerly
R.I.A), Certified Journeyman* per year
(leVel)
completed: 1 1/2 points
(Maximum of 5 years)
(Note that years included herein are not
also to be included under Factor A)
*"Journeyman" to be replaced with appropriate term when the
Apprenticeship Act is amended.
i) The minimum qualiflcations requirement is a count of
8 points based upon the appointment factors. Since this is
the minimum requirement, a total of 8 points corresponds to
the minimum rate. (This is not intended to preclude a
college from hiring an individual whose qualifications and
experience total less than 8 points. In such cases,
however, the individual would be hired at the minimum of the
scale.)
ii) Computation of the initial salary is, therefore, A
+ B - 8. The product is rounded to the next higher number,
e.g.
A = 5 points
B = 4 1/2 points
A + B = 9 1/2 points
9 1/2 - o = 1 1/2 = 2
The starting position is the corresponding step (Step
2) on the scale.
iii) No individual will have a starting salary of less
than the minimum on the salary scale. Nor will an
individual's maximum starting salary exceed the specified
maximum starting salary on the scale.
2, Pt' r aton l actora
(Annual increments to the appropriate control point of
the salary scale are based upon experience. Beyond that
point, performance constitutes the basis of progression.)
Step Value
A) l~p~'i~'~ - to control
point I step per year
5
B) Perfo~ - above control
point where performance
satisfactory 1 step per year
- where prior approval
given by the college 1 step for each completed
year at the post-
secondary level - on the
basis of the explanatory
notes set out in Section
B of the Appointment
factors on pages 107-108.
Note: No credit will be
given where to do so
would reduce total
/ progression time to the
appropriate maximum to
less than 4 years.
If a given individual's qualifications and experience are
such that the College concerned considers that person to be
particularly important to its program but the salary as
established by the plan in inadequate, the College may grant
up to three additional steps on appointment provided the
resultant rate does not place the individual above the
maximum starting rate for that person's level of formal
education.
It was the submission of Mr. Stephenson, on behalf of
~he Union, that in accordance with Article 3 of the Collective
Agreement, placement on the salary scale is determined by the
application of the appointment and progression factors set out in
the Classification Plan, While the progression factors apply to
experience and educational qualifications gained during
employmen~ with the College, it was submitted that the
appointment factors apply to relevant experience and
qualifications obtained prior to employment with the College. As
the purpose of the Plan is to give credit for such experience and
6
qualifications, Mr. Stephenson contended that it would be
manifestly unfair to find that credit is to be given only at the
point of hiring. Such an interpretation would not only defeat
the purpose of the Plan but, in the case of an employee such as
the Grievor, the College would actually receive a windfall in
that it would have the benefit of relevant occupational
experience for which no compensation would be payable to the
employee.
It Was the submission of Mr. Jarvis, on behalf of the
College, that Article 3 of the Collective Agreement provides that
starting salaries and progression within the salary scales are to
be determined in accordance with the Compensation Plan. Mr.
Jarvis further contended that under the Plan, the appointment
factors,, which consist of the relevant experience and formal
qualifications that an employee brings to the College, are to be
given credit only at the point of hiring. While in this case,
the Grie¥or's experience became relevant after her transfer in
1986, it was submitted that in another case, an employee may be
given credit for experience which then ceases to be relevant
following a transfer. In either event, however, Mr. Jarvis
contended that the parties have made no provision for the re-
evaluation of relevant experience based upon a change in teaching
assignment. In the result, Mr. Jarvis requested that the
grievance be dismissed.
7
In this case, Article 3.01 of the Collective Agreement
provides that the salary scales applicable to full-time employees
shall be in accordance with Appendix I. Article 3.02 then
provides that the determination of starting salaries and
progression within the salary scales shall be in accordance with
the Classification Plan. The Plan refers to the application of
both appointment and progression factors and there would appear
to be no dispute that the progression factors pertain to
experience and formal qualifications obtained while in the employ
of the College. In contrast, the appointment factors address
relevant occupational or teaching experience and formal
qualifications obtained prior to employment'with the College.
The issue is whether the appointment factors are to be
applied only at the point of hiring or whether an employee may
become entitled to credit at some later date in the event that
prior occupational experience becomes relevant to a teaching
assignment. In the Board's view, the language of the
Classification Plan leaves no doubt that the appointment factors
are relevant to a determination of starting salary and,
therefore, are applied only once at the point of hiring.
In this regard, the Plan defines relevant occupational
experience and then provides that in determining the number of
years to be counted, the College "hiring" must avoid the extremes
of counting either years of time passed or years of entirely non-
repetitive experience and must make a fair assessment of the
applicant's experience. In the Board's view, the use of the word
"hiring" and the reference to the "applicant's" experience
indicate that occu~pational experience is to be evaluated at the
point of hire.
We are reinforced in this view by other provisions of
the Compensation Plan relating to the application of the
appointment factors and, in particular, to the computation of
initial salary. In this regard, the Plan provides that although
the minimum qualifications requirement is a count of 8 points,
this is not intended to preclude the College from "hiring" an
individual whose qualifications and experience total less than 8
points. The Plan further provides for the calculation of initial
salary and specifies that the starting salary is the
corresponding step on the scale. However, no individual shall
have a starting salary of less than the minimum on the salary
scale, nor will an individual's maximum starting salary exceed
the specified maximum starting salary on the scale. Given this
language, it is clear that the appointment factors are to be
applied at the time of hiring and the parties have made no
provision for the re-evaluation of an employee's prior experience
because of a change in teaching assignment.
Although this conclusion may appear to result in some
inequity in the case of an employee such as the Grievor whose
9
experience became relevant only subsequent to her transfer, as
pointed out by the College, the converse may also occur and the
College may be required to compensate an employee for experience
which ceases to be relevant following a change in teaching
assignment. In either circumstance, however, there is no
provision for the reassessment of occupational experience and
credit is given only for purposes of calculating an employee's
initial placement on the salary scale.
In this case, there was no dispute that the Grievor's
occupational experience was properly assessed at the date of
hire. Accordingly, for the reasons set out, the grievance of Ms.
McKay is hereby dismissed.
DATED AT TORONTO, this 18th day of June, 1992.
Chairman
"David W. Guptil]"
College Nominee
"Jon McManus"
Union Nominee