HomeMy WebLinkAboutHales 88-03-25 Concerning an arbitration
Between:
NIAGARA COLLEGE
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
Grievance of T. Hales,. salary level, 87C41
Board of Arbitration
J. W. Samuels, Chairman
A. S. Merritt, College Nominee
I. Freedman, Union Nominee
For the Parties
College
C. G. Riggs, Counsel.
G. Pevere, Director of Personnel
J.q3alasak, Personnel Officer
Dr. A. Knowles
Union
R. E. Stoykewych, Counsel
J. Hastings, Local President
D. Orr, Steward
T. Hales, Grievor
Hearing in St. Catharines, March 9, 1988
Tom Hales has been a teaching master at Niagara College since 1978.
Before that, he worked fourteen years for the CNR and had eamed his papers
as a journeyman machinist after a five-year apprenticeship, which involved
10000 hours of practical experience and 746 hours of classroom time. When
he came to the College, his level on the salary scale was based on his years of
work experience, but no credit was given to him for his qualifications as a
journeyman. Several adjustments were made in his salary level over the
years, but he has not been given full credit for his five-year apprenticeship.
In November 1986, he grieved the College's failure to give him this credit,
and he asks for compensation right back to his date of hire.
Article 3.02 of the collective agreement provides that the
determination of starting salaries and progression within the salary scales
shall be in accordance with the College's Classification Plans. The
Classification Plans for Academic Employees provide for the calculation of
starting salary according to credit given for experience (relevant teaching or
relevant occupational), and relevant formal qualifications.
For "experience", the new teaching master is given 1 point per year
for the first five years, 2/3 point per year for the next 9 years, and 1/2 point
per year for the next 12 years.
With respect to "relevant formal qualifications", the Classifications
Plans provide:
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 succes-
sively higher levels, and leading to a diploma, professional
accreditation or degree, are recognized. For example, a
graduate of a three-year technology program in a College would
be given 1112 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.
· C.A.A.T. Diploma or Post-Secondary
Certificate -- per year (level) completed: 11/2 points
(Maximum of 4 years)
· University Degree: per year (level)
completed: 11/2 points
(Maximum of 6 years)
· Formal integrated work/study program such
as P. Eng., R.I.A., C.A., C.G.A.,
Certified Journeyman -- per year (level)
completed: '1~12 points
(Maximum of 5 years)
(Note that years included herein are not
also to be included under Factor A)
The minimum overall qualifications requirement is eight points.
Thus, to calculate the starting level on the salary scale, the "experience"
points are added to the "relevant formal qualifications" points (note that
years included in the latter category are not counted in the former, in order
to avoid double-counting), and then 8 is subtracted from this total to arrive at
the starting position.
Now let's look at what was done in Mr. Hales' case.
When he came to the College in 1978, he was given credit for fourteen
years' "experience" with CNR (5 points for the first five years, and 6 points
for the next nine years, giving a total of 11 points). Subtracting the minimum
8 from his 11 points put him at Step 3 on the salary scale. He was given no
credit for "relevant formal qualifications", because the Classification Plans
say that "Formal qualifications are those which constitute the norm in
institutions of post-secondary education in the Province of Ontario. Only
fi~ll years of post-secondary education at successively higher levels, and
leading to a diploma, professional accreditation or degree, are recognized".
And though "certified journeyman" appears in the list of qualifications which
follow, Mr. Hales' apprenticeship did not involve post-secondary education.
In our view, this initial placement was entirely appropriate. The
Classification Plans are clear, "relevant formal qualifications" must involve
"post-secondary education". There is no suggestion that some equivalent
education will do, nor that it will suffice to combine long work experience
with a trades apprenticeship. The only type of formal education which is
recognized is "post-secondary education".
In 1981, changes were made in the provincial Apprenticeship and
Tradesmen's Qualifications Act, as a result of which Mr. Hales received a
Certificate of Qualification as an Industrial Mechanic Millwright. Both
parties agree, and they are correct, that this Certificate should make no
difference to Mr. Hales' position on the salary scale at the College, because it
does not represent any additional education. He should be in the same
position after receiving the Certificate as he was before its receipt.
In 1981, a new collective agreement came into force with a Step 15 on
the salary scale, which was to be the maximum salary for "3 year CAAT
Diploma or General Pass University Degree or certified Journeyman holding
equivalent qualifications". There was also a note to Step 15:
*Step 15 equivalent qualifications for a certified journeyman or
someone treated as such, shall mean the successful completion of
five full year CAAT courses at the technologist level of which two
are directly related to the individual's area of expertise, or the
equivalent. The course of study leading to equivalent Step 15
qualification for certified journeyman, or someone treated as such,
shall be approved in advance by the College.
When these new provisions came into effect, some of the teaching
masters in the trades at the College (not including Mr2 Hales) went to
management and asked for an increase in their maximum salary to Step 15.
The College agreed for some of the tradesmen. Mr. Hales then approached
management and asked for a Step 15 maximum. In June 1982, after he
provided a copy of his Certificate to the College, his maximum was moved to
Step 15 (though he wasn't at maximum yet).
In 1986, shortly before he filed his grievance, Mr. Hales received
word from the College that his salary level at the time was being adjusted up
three steps, effective September 1, 1985. At our hearing, counsel for the
College explained that the reasoning behind this adjustment was as follows---
because Mr. Hales' maximum was Step 15, and Step 15 maximum is given for
inter alia a 3 year CAAT Diploma, Mr. Hales was now being given a notional
credit for formal qualifications equal to the credit for a 3 year CAAT
Diploma, though Mr. Hales was not legally entitled to any credit for formal
qualifications (as we have akeady explained above).
Counsel for the College argued that both the move to Step 15
maximum, and the three-level adjustment on the salary scale, were merely ex
gratia, and not improvements to which the grievor is legally entitled under
the collective agreement. However, the College has no intention of revoking
these improvements.
In our view, Mr. Hales may in fact be entitled to the Step 15 maximum,
because the collective agreement provides for Step 15 for a "certified
Journeyman holding equivalent qualifications" (emphasis added). It may be
argued that Mr. Hales has "equivalent qualifications".
But his immediate position on the salary scale is determined according
to the Classification Plans, and, as we have already said, the Classification
Plans are clear that there is no credit for formal qualifications unless they are
at the post-secondary level. There is no provision in the Classification Plans
for the recognition of "equivalent qualifications". Thus, we agree with
counsel for the College that Mr. Hales' move up three steps on the salary scale
was ex gratia.
Mr. Hales and counsel for the Union expressed concern with the
"unfairness" or "injustice" of Mr. Hales' situation, because it was said that
other teaching masters in the trades have been more favorably treated than
Mr. Hales. The sole basis for this sentiment appears to be some conversations
Mr. Hales has had with colleagues concerning their salary levels. But we
heard no concrete evidence concerning the treatment of others. As far as we
are concerned,-there is no evidence whatsoever of discriminatory treatment.
Mr. Hales did not appear to have a real appreciation of how the Classification
Plans work, and therefore it is unlikely that he would have been in a position
to assess whether or not his colleagues were proPerly placed according to the
Classification Plans. And this is critical. The Classification Plans govern
placement on the salary scale. If Mr. Hales and the Union have some concern
with the justice of.the Classification Plans (and we are not saying that they are
"unjust" or "unfair" in any way whatsoever), then the appropriate remedy is
to renegotiate the Plans.
For these reasons, the grievance is dismissed.
Done at London, Ontario, this ~Say of //~-c~ ,1988.
A. S. Merritt, College Nominee
I. Freedman, Union Nominee