Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSmits 87-11-05IN THE MATTER OF A WORKLOAD ARBITRATION BETWEEN: HUMBER COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY AND: LEO R~]~R..-~EPRESENTED BY THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 22v 1987 APPEARANCES FOR TgF. COLLEGE: CARL ERIKSEN BAR~I E SAXTON APPEARANCES FOR T~. UNION: LEO SMITE JOHN HUOT SOLE ARBIT]~ATOR: BILL ~tENO DECISION There are two issues in dispute in this case which I shall address individually. The first issue concerns the application of my award dated January 5-, 1987 on the question of the number of hours attributed for the Co-ordinator's duties assigned to Mr. Smits for the Fall 1986 semester. Mr. Smits claims that this award, which found that 12.5 hours per week should be attributed for Co-ordinator's duties, should also apply to the Winter 1987 semester, in accordance with Article 4o02(6)(f) of the Collective Agreement. He asserts that the job of a Co-ordinator is performed over the course of an entire academic year and that details of this job cannot be neatly divided by semester° The College has attempted to change the content of the Co- ordinator's job in the Winter semester in order to fit Mr. Smits' total workload within the allowable 44 hours per week. The College claims that adjusting the duties of the Co-ordinator - is within the scope of Article 7 (Management Functions) and -2- claimed that Article 4.02(6)(f) did not apply in this case, since complementary functions vary from semester to semester. I find that Leo Smits should continue to have 12.5 hours attributed to his total workload for the Winter 1987 semester for the following reasons: 1. The College first issued an SWF to Mr. Smits for the Winter 1987 semester on November 5, 1986. The Complementary Functions for Academic Year listed on that SWF are identical to those listed on the Fall 1986 SWF on which I ruled in my January 5, 1987 award° It appears that the College itself considered the job of a Co-ordinator to be an 'academic y'ear-].ong one with no differentiation in the overall duties from semester to semester. 2. The College acknowledged that the SWF issued on November 5, 1986 was later revised at least partly in response to the January 5, 1987 award. While the College cited Article 4.01(7)(c)~ as its authority to amend assignments "where a change in circumstances requires it", it appears that the change in circumstances were essentially the economic consequences of my previous award. I do not find this to be sufficient reason to invoke this Article over Article 4.02(6)(f). -3- 3. Management functions as outlined in Article 7.01 are not usurped by this decision, as Article 7.02 provides that "these functions will be exercised in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Agreement". In my view, Article 4.02(6)(f) is applicable in this case, although the College may in the future choose to define Fall Semester Co-ordinator duties differently from Winter Semester Co-ordinator duties at the beginning of the academic.year° The second issue concerns the two hours attributed for new student orientation, listed under "Complementary Functions for Academic Year on the SWF issued November 5, 1986, but not on the revised SWF issued in January 1987o Mr. Smits claims that two hours are attributed to other full-time regular faculty in the Community Worker/Social Service Worker programs for new student orientation. ~ The College replied that other faculty are given one hour for this function and the Co-ordinator is given an additional hour for specific Co-ordinator's duties related to this function. My notes from the previous hearing indicate that there was some discussion then about this function. Mr. Smits had asked for 0.5 hours per week for "Admissions" functions. Management replied that this was primarily a Winter Semester activity, taking place for the most part in May and June. Management sa].d at that hearing that two hours per week are allocated to the Co-ordinator for this function in the Winter semester. In my award of January 5, 1987, I accepted Management's position and did not award Mr. Smits additional hours for this function. I assumed that these duties in the Winter semester would be offset by the fact that there were some duties specific to the Fall semester which would not have to be performed in the Winter. I find that the one hour per week which the College attributes to specific Co-ordinator duties concerning new student orientation should be included in the 12.5 hours per week for Co-ordinator duties. However, Mr. Smits is awarded the additional hour per week that the College claims is given to all faculty.' for this function. , In the result, Mr. Smits is awarded an additional 3.5 hours for Complementary Functions.for the Winter 1987 semester. In the event that the parties are unable to come to an agreement on the amount of compensation arising out of this decision, shall remain seised of the matter. DATED at TOronto this fifth day of November, 1987. Bill Workload Resolution Arbitrator