HomeMy WebLinkAboutSimpson 89-02-22 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
GEORGIAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS
AND TECHNOLOGY
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
GRIEVANCE OF RONALD SIMPSON
BOARD OF ARBITRATION:
JANE H. DEVLIN CHAIRMAN
RENE ST. ONGE COLLEGE NOMINEE
JANE BERN UNION NOMINEE
Appearances For the College:
Robert J. Atkinson
Brian Tamblyn
Peter Watson
Appearances For the Union:
Elizabeth McIntyre
Regis Yaworski
Peter Pass
Ronald Simpson
The grievance which is dated ADril 22, 1988 was filed
by Ronald SimDson in response to the following notice of layoff:
"April 4, 1988
Personal and Confidential
Mr. Ron Simpson
R.R. # 3
Coldwater, Ontario
LOK lEO
Dear Ron:
I sincerely regret that I must provide you with ninety
(90) calendar days notice of termination from your
employment with Georgian College.
This lay-off comes as a result of an anticipated
reduction in activity in your area, although we are
hopeful that new training purchases may occur.
At this point, we are asking you to remain in your
teaching position until the close of the day on June
30, 1988. You would then commence vacation, exhausting
your vacation entitlement by September 2, 1988
(inclusively).
In serving you with this layoff letter, we are assumimg
that you wish to remain in residence in the Barrie
area. You may have displacement rights however, as per
Article 8.05 of the Academic Collective Agreement.
Please indicate to me in writing if you wish to explore
your displacement rights, as soon as possible (as per
Article 8.08).
You may also elect to receive a severance payment (as
per Article 8.16), waiving all rights to recall (as per
Article 8.06). Your continuous service with the
College began August 19, 1982.
The College recognizes the significant contributions
that you have made to your students and the School of
Engineering Technology, and we deeply regret that this
action has had to be taken. Please advise either Peter
Watson or myself regarding which of the above options
you wish to pursue, and don't hesitate to contact
either one of us if you have any questions concerning
this notice.
Yours truly,
'Brian'
Brian G. Tamblyn
Director, Personnel
and Payroll Services
cc: W. Leslie P. Watson
B. Woods"
As a result of the notice of layoff, the Grievor sought
to exercise his displacement rights and pursuant to Article 8.08
of the Collective Agreement, he identified Laverne Wyville as the
employee he was entitled to displace. On the second day of
hearing, however, Ms. McIntyre, who appeared on behalf of the
Union, advised the Board that the Grievor had been recalled to
the College effective January 2, 1989. As a consequence, the
relief claimed is restricted to a declaration that the Grievor
was improperly laid off and to compensation for the period of the
layoff.
Mr. Wyville is a Teaching Master in the School of
Engineering Technology at the College's Owen Sound campus.
During the 1988/89 academic year, he has been assigned to teach a
total of 12 hours each week in the Toolmaking Program which
consists of 8 hours of instruction on the practical aspects of
the Program and 4 hours on theory. There is no dispute about the
Grievor's ability to teach Toolmaking which is not a recognized
apl~renticeship puoguam.
During the 1988/89 academic year, Mr. Wyville has also
been assigned to teach apprentices in the metal cutting trades
and in particular, the trades of general machinist, industrial
millwright and tool and die maker. Mr. Wyville instructs
apprentices in these trades for 4 hours each week at each of the
basic and advanced levels. The basic course is attended by 4
machinist apprentices, 12 millwright apprentices and 2 tool and
die apprentices. At the advanced level, there are 7 machinist
apprentices and 8 tool and die apprentices. There is no dispute
about the Grievor's ability to teach apprentices at the basic
level or about his ability to teach machinist apprentices at the
advanced level. The College takes the position, however, that
the Grievor is not capable of teaching tool and die apprentices
at the advanced level but, in any event, is not relatively equal
in terms of competence, skill and experience to Mr. Wyville.
As indicated in the notice of layoff, the Grievor's
seniority date is August 19, 1982. Prior to joining the faculty
of the College, the Grievor completed his secondary school
education and in 1974, he obtained a .Certificate of
Apprenticeship as an industrial or general machinist. To obtain
this Certificate, which was issued under the Apprenticeship and
Tradesmen's Qualification Act, the Grievor completed 8000 hours
of training in an industrial setting, known as work experience
training, and in addition, attended a period of in-school
instruction. In 1982, the Grievor also obtained a Certificate of
Qualification as an industrial millwright. Rather than serving a
4
period of apprenticeship, the Grievor obtained this Certificate
by satisfying the Director of Apprenticeship that he had
experience in the trade equivalent to the work experience
training required of a millwright apprentice. The Grievor was
then permitted to write an examination and upon passing, was
granted a Certificate of Qualification. The Grievor testified
that there is considerable overlap between the trades of
machinist and millwright and that his experience as a machinist
assisted him in obtaining his Certificate as an industrial
millwright.
Subsequent to the filing of the grievance, in June of
1988, the Grievor also.obtained a Certificate of Qualification as
a tool and die maker. Again, 'the Grievor obtained this
Certificate by satisfying the Director that he had experience
equivalent to the work experience training required of a tool and
die apprentice and by writing an examination which he passed with
77%. Apart from his Certificate of Apprenticeship and
Certificates of Qualification, the Grievor has also taken
courses on numerical controlled machine tools.
From 1970 to 1982, the Grievor worked at Fahramet, a
subsidiary of Falconbridge, where he served his apprenticeship
and later worked as Lead Hand and then as Foreman of the Machine
Shop. Since joining the faculty of the College, the Grievor has
continued to work on a part-time basis for a number of companies
and for the most part, he has worked as a machinist. We do not
5
propose to review this work in detail as it is acknowledged that
the Grievor is an experienced and talented machinist. During his
employment, the Grievor's only direct exposure to dies has been
at Sin Ram, a jobbing shop where the Grievor has 'worked from time
to time for approximately 10 years. The Grievor testified that
at Sin Ram, he has done some work on punch presses and has made
and repaired components of dies. At the College, the Grievor
assembled one simple die in which the completed part is produced
in one Dress cycle and there is only one operation on the part.
The Grievor has never assembled a compound die in which there are
two operations on one press cycle to produce the completed part
or a progressive die in which several strokes of the press are
required to produce the completed part.
At Georgian College, the Grievor's principle area of
teaching has been the Machine Shop. The Grievor testified,
however, that he has filled in for other Teaching Masters in the
Machine Shop portion of the Tool and Die Program. At the Barrie
campus, this is a pre-apprenticeship rather than an
apprenticeship program. Just prior to his layoff, the Grievor
also taught students in the Toolmaking Program at the advanced
level and was, at one time, scheduled to teach Toolmaking at the
Orillia campus. Although the Grievor has never taught
apprentices, he testified that he was involved in training
apprentices at Fahramet, particularly as a Lead hand and later as
a Foreman. The Grievor agreed, however, that there were no tool
and die apprentices at Fahramet. In any event, the Grievor
6
testified that he could teach machinist, millwright and tool and
die apprentices at the basic level and machinist apprentices at
the advanced level without difficulty. The Grievor explained
that there is a significant overlap in the functions of these
particular trades. The Grievor also testified that, with time
and resources, he could instruct tool and die apprentices at the
advanced level. In areas with which he is not entirely familiar,
such as calculating tool and die related values, the Grievor
testified that he would refer to texts and other resource
materials.
Edward Anderson is Co-ordinator of Industrial Skills
for the Barrie campus and a tool and die maker by trade. Mr.
Anderson described the Grievor as an excellent machinist and
testified that he assumed that the Grievor had some work
experience in tool and die making in order to have obtained a
Certificate of Qualification in this trade. Based upon the
curriculum for the Tool and Die Program at the Barrie campus, Mr.
Anderson also expressed the view that the Grievor could teach the
course at the advanced level. Mr. Anderson had no personal
knowledge 0f the curriculum for the course which is tauHht by Mr.
Wyville at the Owen Sound campus. ~
Mr. Wyville commenced his employment with the College
in 1982 and taught on a part-time basis until 1986 when he began
teaching full-time. He obtained a Certificate of Apprenticeship
as a tool and die maker in 1972 while working at Amerock, a
7
company which manufactures decorative hardware. Following his
apprenticeship, Mr. Wyville worked as a jQurneyman tool and die
maker at Amerock for approximately 13 years. Mr. Wyville has
assembled a number of small dies and approximately 12 major dies.
Because of the cost involved, Mr. Wyville explained that a
journeyman may have to work for as long as 10 years before being
permitted to assemble major dies. Toward the end of his
employment at Amerock, Mr. Wyville was also in charge of training
apprentices. In addition to his Certificate of Apprenticeship,
Mr. Wyville has a Certificate of Qualification as a tool and die
maker and, like the Grievor, has taken a course on the C.N.C.
lathe.
At Georgian College, Mr. Wyville has taught apprentices
in the metal cutting trades at the basic, intermediate and
advanced levels and has also taught in the Toolmaking Program.
As distinct from pre-apprenticeship programs in which the
students' practical experience is generally limited to what they
have learned in high school, apprentices at the advanced level of
the course taught by Mr. Wyville typically have 3 to 4 years of
work experience training by the time they attend the College.
For this reason, Mr. Wyville testified that teaching apprentices
is particularly challenging. As students frequently ask
questions about problems they have encountered at work, it is
also necessary to be completely conversant with the subject
matter.
8
Tool and die and machinist apprentices at the advanced
level attend Georgian College on day release from their jobs for
a total of 6 hours of instruction, 1 day each week for 40 weeks.
Mr. Wyville teaches 4 hours each week, consisting of 1 1/2 hours
of theory and 2 1/2 hours of practical instruction in the Shop.
Mr. Wyville testified that the Ministry of Skills Development
provides certain course material which must be covered with the
students and that for tool and die apprentices at the advanced
level, this includes instruction on compound and progressive
dies. Such apprentices must also design and build their own die
set and make at least one simple die. Students who are capable
of doing so build compound or progressive dies.
In the spring of 1988, Peter Watson was the Chairman of
the School of Engineering Technology at the Barrie campus and was
the Grievor's Supervisor. Prior to the Grievor being provided
with the notice of layoff set out previously, Mr. Watson
acknowledged that he advised the Grievor that, rather than being
laid off, he could be transferred to the Owen Sound campus. Mr.
Watson testified, however, that when he made the statement, he
understood that Mr. Wyville was teaching Toolmaking but did not
realize that Mr. Wyville was also scheduled to teach tool and die
apprentices at the advanced level in the fall of 1988.
Mr. Watson explained that at a meeting held at Step 1
of the grievance procedure on April 27, 1988, the Grievor
identified Mr. Wyville and another Teaching Master as the
employees he was entitled to displace. It was only at that point
that Mr. Watson investigated the courses being taught by Mr.
Wyville and learned that Mr. Wyville was scheduled to teach tool
and die apprentices at the advanced level. As Mr. Watson did not
believe that the Grievor was capable of teaching these
apprentices, he advised Mr. Simpson in a reply to the grievance
dated June 7, 1988 that he would not be permitted to displace Mr.
Wyville. A further grievance meeting was held on June 22nd and
the College's reply at Step 2 is dated June 24, 1988.
Mr. Watson testified that the Grievor has never worked
as a tool and die maker or taught in this particular field. He
also expressed the view that teaching apprentices at the advanced
level is particularly demanding and suggested that if the
Grievor were to be assigned to teach tool and die apprentices at
this level, the course would close. Given the students'
experience in industry, Mr. Watson testified that they would soon
realize that the Grievor was not entirely familiar with the
subject matter and they would no longer attend class.
Although Mr. Watson became aware at some point that the
Grievor had obtained a Certificate of Qualification as a tool and
die maker, he testified that this did not change his view of the
Grievor's ability as the Grievor still lacked the skill and
10
experience necessary to teach tool and die apprentices at the
advanced level. In contrast to the Grievor, Mr. Watson
testified that Mr. Wyville is an experienced tool and die maker
who has taught apprentices for a number of years. Although Mr.
Wyville does not have a Certificate of Apprenticeship as a
machinist, Mr. Watson explained that .there is a common machining
core to the metal cutting trades and Mr. Watson described the
machinist trade as subordinate to that of tool and die maker, a
view which was also shared by Mr. Wyville. For this reason, Mr.
Watson testified that a tool and die maker, such as Mr. Wyville,
could teach machinist apprentices at the advanced level although
the converse would not be true.
Prior to addressing the merits of Mr. Simpson's
grievance, it is necessary to deal with an issue raised by the
parties concerning the provisions of the Collective Agreement
which are applicable in this case. In the spring of 1988, when
the College provided the Grievor with the notice of layoff set
out previously, the Collective Agreement covering the period from
September 1, 1985 to August 31, 1987 ("the 85/87 Collective
Agreement") continued in effect. The current Collective
Agreement which covers the period from September 1, 1987 to
August 31, 1989 was executed by the parties on May 30, 1988 which
was subsequent to the meeting at Step 1 of the grievance
procedure and prior to the College's reply declining to allow the
Grievor to displace Mr. Wyville.
11
Articles 8.05 and 8.06 of the 85/87 Collective
Agreement which deal with the manner in which a layoff is to be
effected are reproduced in Appendix IX of the current Collective
Agreement and the relevant portions of these Articles are as
follows:
8.05 When the College decides to lay off or to reduce
the number of full-time employees who have completed
the probationary period or transfer involuntarily full-
time employees who have completed the probationary
period to another position from that previously held as
a result of such lay-off or reduction of employees, the
following placement and displacement provisions shall
apply to full-time employees so affected. Where the
competence, skill, and experience of employees to
fulfill the requirements of the full-time position
concerned are relatively equal, seniority shall apply
consistent with the following:
(a) an employee will be reassigned within the
College to a vacant full-time position in lieu of being
laid off if the employee has the competence, skill, and
experience to perform the requirements of a vacant
position;
(b) Failing placement under paragraph (a) above, such
employee shall be reassigned to displace another full-
time employee in the same classification provided
that:
(i) the displacing employee has the competence,
skill, and experience to fulfill the requirements
of the position relatively equal to the employee
being displaced;
(ii) the employee being displaced has lesser
seniority with the College.
8.06 (a) Before hiring full-time employees, a person
who has been laid off under Section 8.05 will be
recalled to that person's former or another full-time
position, provided that the person has the competence,
skill, and experience to fulfill the requirements of
the position concerned. Such recall entitlement shall
apply during the period of two years from the date of
lay-off;
12
(b) If more than one employee is entitled to recall
to a position under paragraph (a) above, and where the
competence skill, and experience of the persons are
relatively equal, the person with the greater seniority
will be recalled.
A note which follows Article 8.04 of the current
Collective Agreement provides that Articles 8.05 and 8.06 which
are contained in Appendix IX were to remain in effect until
August 31, 1988. On September 1, 1988 Articles 8.05 and 8.06
were replaced by those below:
8.05 When the' College decides to lay off or to reduce
the number of full-time employees who have completed
the probationary period or transfer involuntarily full-
time employees who have completed the probationary
period to another Position from that previously held as
a result of such lay-off or reduction of employees, the
following placement and displacement provisions shall
apply to full-time employees so affected. Where an
employee has the competence, skill and experience to
fulfill the requirements of the full-time position
concerned, seniority shall apply consistent with the
following:
(a) an employee will be reassigned within the College
to a vacant full-time position in lieu of being laid
off if the employee has the competence, skill, and
experience to perform the requirements of the vacant
position.
(b) failing placement under paragraph (a) above,
such employee shall be reassigned to displace another
full-time employee in the same classification provided
that:
(i) the displacing employee has the competence,
skill, and experience to fulfill the
requirements of the position concerned.
(ii) the employee being displaced has lesser
seniority with the College.
13
8.06 (a) Before hiring full-time employees, a person
who has been laid off under Section 8.05 will be
recalled to that person's former or another full-time
position, provided that the person has the competence,
skill, and experience to fulfill the requirements of
the position concerned. Such recall entitlement shall
apply during the period of two years from the date of
lay-off;
(b) If more than one employee is entitled to recall
to a position under paragraph (a) above, the person with
the greater seniority will be recalled.
Unlike Articles 8.05 and 8.06, Articles 8.04 and 8.08
are common to both the 85/87 Collective Agreement and to the
entire period covered current Collective Agreement and these are
as follows:
8.04 When a College plans to lay-off or to reduce the
number of full-time employees who have completed the
probationary period, or plans the involuntary transfer
of such employees to other positions than those
previously held as a result of such a planned lay-off
or reduction of employees the following procedure shall
apply:
(a) The College will notify the Union Local President
of the planned staff reduction and the courses, programs or
services affected;
(b) Within seven calendar days of the receipt of
such notification, the College and Union Committees
shall meet for the purpose of the College advising of
the circumstances giving rise to the planned staff
reduction and the employees affected;
(c) If requested by the Union within three
calendar days following the meeting under subsection
(b), the College and Union Committees shall meet within
seven calendar days of receipt of such request for the
purpose of discussing the planned Staff reduction, the
circumstances givin_~ rise to the reduction, the basis
for the selection of the employees affected and the
availability of alternative assignments.
14
It being understood that the College reserves the right
to determine the number and composition of full-time,
partial-load and part-time or sessional teaching
positions, the College shall give preference to
continuation of full-time positions over partial-load,
part-time or sessional positions subject to such
operational requirements as the quality of the
programs, their economic viability, attainment of
program objectives, the need for special qualifications
and the market acceptability of the programs to
employees, students and the community.
Further meetings may be held where mutually agreed
by the College and the Union;
(d) The Union Committee and the College shall
maintain the confidentiality of the meetings and the
identity of all employees discussed;
(e) The Union shall have the right to have a
staff representative(s) of the Union present at
meetings with the College under subsections (b) and (c)
in which event the College shall have the right to have
an equal number of additional representatives of the
College attend such meetings. However, the attendance
of additional persons pursuant to this paragraph shall
not cause any delay in the meetings contemplated
hereunder or the notice to individuals affected by the
staff reduction;
(f) When a College decides, following such
meetings to proceed with a lay-off of one or more
employees who have completed the probationary period
written notice of lay-off of not less than ninety (90)
calendar days duration shall be given to employees
being laid off. If requested by the employee, a
College representative will be available to meet with
the employee within three (3) calendar days to discuss
the basis of the College selection of the employees
affected.
8.08 (a) An employee claiming improper lay-off
contrary to the provisions of this Agreement, shall
state in the grievance the names of up to four (4)
employees (of whom no more than three (3) shall be
full-time) whom the employee claims entitlement to
displace. The time limit referred to 'in Section 11.02
for presenting complaints shall apply from the date
written notice of lay-off is given to the employee.
15
(b) If the grievance is processed through Step 2,
the written referral to arbitration in Section 11.03
shall specify, from the names of such employees
originally designated in (a) above, the name of only
one full-time employee or two or more Partial-load or
part-time employees (the sum of whose duties will form
one full-time position), who shall thereafter be the
subject matter of the grievance and arbitration. The
grievor shall be entitled to arbitrate the grievance
thereafter under only one' of sub-paragraphs (a), (b),
(c), (d) or (e) of Section 8.05
It was the submission of Mr. Atkinson, on behalf of the
College, that the 85/87 Collective Agreement is relevant to the
determination of Mr. Simpson's grievance as this was the
Agreement in force at the time the Grievor received the notice of
layoff dated April 4, 1988. Alternatively, Mr. Atkinson
contended that, if the current Collective Agreement does apply
then the layoff procedure contained in that Agreement which was
effective until August 31, 1988 governs in this case. Mr.
Atkinson submitted that the Collective Agreement provides for the
filing of a grievance following the notice of layoff and that
College's decision with respect to the Grievor's claim to
displace Mr. Wyville was properly made in the late spring of 1988
in accordance with Article 8.05 as it existed prior to September
1, 1988. In these circumstances, Mr. Atkinson suggested that the
orderly administration of the Collective Agreement requires that
the provisions of the Agreement which took effect on September 1,
1988 apply only to layoff decisions made after that date.
16
It was the submission of Ms. McIntyre, on behalf of the
Union, that the Grievor's layoff did not actually take place
until his vacation entitlement was exhausted on September 2,
1988. As a result, Ms. McIntyre contended that the
current Collective Agreement applies and, in particular, the
layoff procedure which took effect on September 1, 1988. In
support of this position, Ms. McIntyre submitted it is the layoff
and not the notice of layoff that is complained of and which is
alleged to have violated the Collective Agreement. In addition,
Ms. McIntyre submitted that an employee's rights of displacement
continue to the date of layoff and are not frozen as of the date
of the notice of layoff. Ms. McIntyre also pointed out that the
period of an employee's right of recall is measured from the date
of layoff and not from the date of the notice of layoff.
In our view, it is unnecessary to determine whether
Article 8.05 as it appeared in the 85/87 Collective Agreement
applies rather than the provisions of Appendix IX of the current
Collective Agreement as these are identical. The real issue is
whether Article 8.05 as it existed prior to September 1, 1988
applies or whether the determination of Mr. Simpson's grievance
is governed by the Article which took effect on September 1,
1988. The difference between the two Articles is, of course,
that prior to August 3t, 1988, the Collective Agreement contained
a relative ability clause such that an employee receiving the
notice of layoff was required to demonstrate that he was
relatively equal in terms of competence, skill and experience to
17
the junior employee whom he sought to displace. The Article
which took effect September 1~ 1988 contains a sufficient ability
clause whereby a senior employee may displace a junior employee
provided that the senior employee has the competence, skill and
experience to fulfill the requirements of the position concerned.
In determining which of the two provisions governs the
grievance before the Board, Article 8.05 must be considered in
the context of the layoff procedure outlined in Article 8 of the
Collective Agreement. Article 8.04 begins by providing that when
the College plans to layoff or reduce the number of full-time
employees, the Union Local President will be notified. The
Article then contemplates that there will be a series of meetings
between the College and Union Committees. If, following these
meetings, the College decides to proceed with the layoff, then 90
calendar days' written notice of layoff will be given to the
employee or employees to be laid off. Within the time period for
presenting a complaint under Article 11:02 or, in other words,
within 20 days of the date of the written notice of layoff, an
employee claiming that the layoff is improper shall state in a
grievance the names of 4 employees (of whom no more than 3 shall
be full-time) whom he or she claims to be entitled to displace.
If the grievance is processed through Step 2 and referred to
arbitration, the employee must restrict his or her claim of
displacement to 1 full-time or 2 or more partial load or
part-time employees. The grievance may be arbitrated under only
one of the sub-paragraphs of Article 8.05.
18
In this case, the notice of layoff was dated April 4,
1988 and the grievance was filed as required by the Collective
Agreement on April 22, 1988. The College's reply at Step 1 was
dated June 7, 1988 and the reply at Step 2, June 24, 1988. In
the meantime and in accordance with the notice provisions of the
Agreement, Mr. Simpson continued to teach until June 30, 1988,
the end of the academic year. He then began a period of
vacation, to which his entitlement was exhausted on September 2,
1988.
In his grievance, Mr. SimDson initially identified both
Mr. Wyville and another Teaching Master as the employees he
was entitled to displace. The College assessed Mr. Simpson's
claim to displace these employees on the basis of Article 8.05 of
the Collective Agreement as it existed prior to September 1,
1988. There is nothing improper about the timing of the
College's decision-making process and, in fact, had the College
refused to consider the Grievor's claim until September of 1988,
the College would have acted in a manner contrary to the
Collective Agreement. Given the nature of the layoff procedure,
we are of the view that in amending Article 8.05, the parties did
not intend that the provision which took effect on September 1,
1988 would apply to layoff or displacement decisions which had
already been made in accordance with the Collective Agreement.
In the result, therefore, we find that the Grievor's claim to
displace Mr. Wyville must be assessed on the basis of Article
8.05 as it existed prior to September 1, 1988. The issue, then,
is whether the Grievor is relatively equal to Mr, Wyville in
terms of competence, skill and experience to fulfill the
requirements of the position concerned.
In addressing this issue, it is necessary to determine,
first of all, whether the Board ought to consider the Certificate
of Qualification as a tool and die maker which was obtained by
the Grievor in June of 1988. It was the position of Mr. Atkinson
that this Certificate is irrelevant as it was obtained after the
grievance was filed and, therefore, after the initial layoff
decision had been made. It was the submission of Ms. McIntyre,
on the other hand, that the Certificate of Qualification is
relevant not only to the skill possessed by the Grievor on the
date of layoff but also reflects competence and skill which he
possessed at the time of the notice of layoff in April of 1988.
Moreover, Ms. McIntyre contended that we must take the
Certificate into account as it was considered by the College in
assessing the Grievor's claim to displace Mr. Wyville.
In our view, and without deciding whether the
Certificate of Qualification is admissible on any other basis, it
should not be disregarded by the Board as Mr. Watson testified
that he was aware that the Grievor had written the examination
and received a provisional Certificate. Although this
Certificate did not alter Mr. Watson's view of the Grievor's
competence, skill and experience to teach tool and die
apprentices at the advanced level, nevertheless, the Certificate
was considered by the College and is, therefore, properly before
the Board.
Turning then to the merits, there is no question that
the Grievor is a skilled machinist and, as indicated at the
outset, the College does not dispute the Grievor's capability to
teach in the Toolmaking 'Program or his ability to teach
machinist, industrial millwright or tool and die apprentices at
the basic level or machinist apprentices at the advanced level.
One aspect of Mr. Wyville's position, however, involves teaching
tool and die apprentices at the advanced level. In respect of
this requirement, it cannot be said that the Grievor is
relatively equal to Mr. Wyville in terms of competence, skill and
experience. Although the Grievor has a Certificate of
Qualification, he has never worked as a tool and die maker. Mr.
Wyville, on the other hand, served his apprenticeship in this
trade and subsequently worked as a journeyman for a period of 13
years. Mr. Wyville has also taught tool and die apprentices for
a number of years at the basic, intermediate and advanced levels.
In addition, the Grievor himself acknowledged that his exposure
to assembling dies has been limited and he has only assembled one
simple die whereas Mr. Wyville has assembled both simple and
complex dies. This is significant when one considers that tool
and die apprentices at the advanced level must receive
instruction on simple, compound and progressive dies and the
students who are capable of doin_q so actually assemble
compound and progressive dies.
The Grievor has a broad range of experience as a
machinist and he also has a Certificate of Qualification as an
industrial millwright which Mr. Wyville does not. Nevertheless,
we are unable to conclude that is relative equality as between
the Grievor and Mr. Wyville in respect of their competence, skill
and experience to fulfill the requirements of the position
occupied by Mr. Wyville. The evidence suggests that machining
skills are common to the metal cutting trades and we are
satisfied that both the Grievor and Mr. Wyville have the ability
to teach these skills. Tool and die making, however, is in the
nature of an additional skill or specialty and although only
part of Mr. Wyville's time is spent teaching tool and die
apprentices at the advanced level, it is, nevertheless, a
requirement of the position. Mr. Wyville's superior competence,
skill and experience in this area is such that it cannot be said
that there is relative equality overall.
In the result and for the reasons set out, the
grievance of Mr. Simpson is hereby dismissed.
DATED AT TORONTO, this 22nd day of February, 1989.
Chairman
"Rene St. Onge"
College Nominee
"Jane Bern"
Union .Nominee