The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUnion 94-09-28 IN TI.~ MATTER OF AN AI~rl~RATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC EMPL,OY~F.~' UNION, LOCAL 653 o~ behs.ff of c~_~ v~med professor~ NOR'I'I~=R~ COLL~GE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECt~OLOGY JAMES MOIUklSON Worldoad Resolution Arbitrator APPEARANCe: On be. hal/o£ the U~ion and c~i,~.ut~: Richard Mason Donald K. Early On behalf of d~e Co.ge: Raymond Gui~don Peter M~cI.~ Guy W. Gi~mo Counsel ~,'OS~S/Q4 ~2:$4 ~?OS 072 ~0 ROEDDE ~OI~lSO~ ~003 This is z complaint f~om various professors a'c Northern Colle$¢ with respc~ to six tmpaid leave days assigned to them under l~ail-Saf:e provisi~ of t. he Social Conn'ac'c legislation. The teach~rs contend thai the way in which r. hose days w~r~ a~si~cd violales Article 11 of thc Collective Agreement. ~ original conlplalm was on behalf of ~9 professors. Subsequent 'co that submhsiori, W. Iaaa.i, who had submitted his own complaia! on the same issue, asked that hi~ be co~_'_e/dered together w/th the others, thus m~_~cing a total of ?0 individual complaints. Yurfldiction Du~$ an lnitia/heating a~ K. fi'klancl lake Csr~,rnts on 27 ~lanuary 1996, the. Coll~c raised a prelimin~ objection, arguing tl~at it wa~ out~ide the mandate of the ~orMoad Resolution Arbitrator to hca~ thc complaint in question. I agreed ~o reser¢c any discus'sion of the mcriu until I had decided on the issue of jurisdiction, After considerin~ ~h¢ va~ous ar~mmeuU ~ud submissions r~nde at that hearing, I issued an interim decision on ~, Februa~, 1994, agreeing to hear argumenu abou'c lhe complahlt iUeLf. My rationale was although the College had implemented a Fail-Safe program within ~he mcaniug of tan VII of Bill 48 or the Social Conrrac~ legislation (Chapte~ $, $~tes o[ Ontario, 1993), Scction 33 (1) of that same Act provides ~ "employees to whom a collective tgreernent al~lles rnsy use the grievance or arbinafion l)rocoduros trader the collective agreement to decide any diffcrcnce betwee~ the employee _~a_ his or her employer arisillg out of the' interpretation, apt)licalion, a~v,~n~$~-alion or alLtcgecl ~onl:mve. nfion of a l~Ogr'~,,, developed by the employer uudcr ~hls Par~." Thoro are two forms of grievance or arbltra~ion procedures set o~ in the Collective Agreemeat between the Colleg~ of Regent~ and O.P. SJ~,U. The College Workload Monitoring Group (CIgMG) and the Workload R~solution Arbitrator O/v'IL~) handle grievances with respec~ to Articles 11.01 and 11.02. All other lp'icwancea are ha~dlcd in accordance with the procedure set out in Article ~2. I rc~er to Articles 11.02 A 6 (b) aud 11.02 F 8. The WMG an~ WRA procedures, there/ore, const/tutc a grievance or arbitration procedure with/n the mt~aalng of Section !}3 (1) Of thc Social Con~act lcgifla~ion. ~, 09/2~/94 ~2:~$ '~?0~ 671 $120 ROk"~DE ~ORI~I$ON Accordin~, I al/reed w hear the mcr/ts of the complaint, subject to the qualification tha: thc complaint must relate to the application of Articles 11,01 and/Or 11,02 of the Collectiv~ Agrecmem; and that by virtue of Section i~3 (2) of the Social Contra. ct l~gislafio=. I was not entitled to make any dec/sion that an adjudicator would make uudcr subsection 31 (2). The hearing on ~e substantive issues was held on 19 May in Ti~z~"a, a~d ~rther submissions and arguments were ~ou~t fo~d at ~a~ ~ ~c ~ef Sze~d of O.~.S.~.U. ~c~ 6~3 ~d i~ le~ ~el r~rescnt~ ~ of ~e co~l~u. No~cm CoHeEe w~ r~sen~d by ~e ~ve De~ oi Pro~s ~d ~ ~e~ve ~r of The complainants do not dispute that the College has the right :o assign unpaid leave days, That ri/,h~ is f'tflly set out in Rill 48. There was a/rea! deal of discussion at the hearings abou! the way tn which the Col].eg¢ at~mp~cd to secure agreement to a wogram of expenditure reductiou. In my view, tha$ discussion/a not relevant to thc issues bcforc mc, Any dcciaion I would make flows from the fact :hat the College iuvok~l a Fail-Sa~¢ Pro~ra:ll u~cler Parc VII of Bill 45, and assi~cd six unpaid leave days to thc complain~u. The~c days were to be taken by March BI, 1994. O~ or about 2 December, 1993, thc various supe~isors issued memos to their respectivc faculty member~ assi~ the unpaid leave da.vs. These assi~men.~ can be grouped imo three broad (though ovcrlappin&) categories. 1, The assignment of hall days duri~ tcachi~ contact wee~, 2. Thc assignmcn~ of full days durlnl~ contact w~eks. This, however, was only done for those professors whose workloads were already compressed into four days, as per Article 11.01 K 2 of thc Collective Ag;recment. 3. The aisi_oT~men~ Of Chris.as Eve day (December 2~) and thc 5-day March The complainan~ arlpt¢ that the College was not enl/tlcd to assign leave days in such a fashion- h is their con~e.~tion th,~ they receive a.~ ann~al salazy ~ot a spccifi~cl workload, one which is delltniled by the various p~o~ions ~f Articles 11.01 and 11.02. Therefore, they ar~.¢, ally reduction in annual salary mt~t be accompanied by a me~urable and comparable redt~ction in as$i~ed alld altrtbll~ed workload, as shown on the Stand~rd Workload Form (SWlr). They re/er ~o this as the 'no pay, no work~' pri~cipl¢. In my view, this basic principle/s fully set out in Section 25 of the legislation, which re/e~s to "unpaid leaves of absence". Thc ordinary sense o[ this phrase is that a.~:cte& employees do not work and they are not paid. Thc concge eau ~ said to have a/reed w/th th/s prindple - /n .the sense 'that management Iold the complainanu noi to perform shy work on their six tmpa/d Ieaw days. If teachers had prcparagon, cvah,~at/ol~ complementary functions or any other activity to perform, they were i~tructed not to do so. Thc U'nioI1 colltcnds, howler, that the way in wMch afsitnmeuts are structured trader the Collective A/reement makes it impossible to reduce such workload activiiies without reducing teaching con~act horus. No such reduction has taken place. This, therefore, is the cr~ of the dispum. I will deal with one ~meral isle first In it~ written submissions, the Unio~l alleged that it W~ LLl~air al:Id iuequhable for th~ Collei~e to make separae ~rrangemezns with each teacher/or the tmp~id l~ave days. Thc key, ~ough not the only, example was Friday, December 24th. Because of the way in which tmpaid leave days were assigned, some teachers worked the enlire week before ~ (and received full p~y), while some teachers had a full or half-day deduct~cL The Unio~ is alleging a violation of Sectio~ 27 (2) of Bill 48, of which the followin~ sub-section states: i, The {Fail. Safe) p~o~ram will be fair and equitabI6 to all employees. The issue ot~ whether Section 27 was vlolaIed clearly b~lon/s to ~n adjudicator appointed under Section 31 of ~h~ Act, not to a Workload Retolution Arbkrator, Therefore, I have ~o power to determine whether/~ fact the overall/mplemcntalio~l of thc pro,ram has been flgr and equitable, T~e A~ Yew Before dealinl~with lite actual merits of the comp}aints, it h usefml to understand how thc acadernic year is or~,auized. By Article 11.(I~ of the Collective Al~rcement, the academic year is to be of ten months duration, usually from September 1 to the following hme 30. By Ar~cle 1~.01 A, full-time employees are e~litled to a vacation of two months as schedttled by the Colle~e. The claa~ implication/s that such vacations will normall~ be taken duriug the monlks of July and August. However, by Article 15,01 B, wh~re a teacher is "assigned m leach for an additional w. on~h (llth month) over the normal teaching &chedule as pan of a continuous 12-mouth program', that ~ead~er shall b~ entitled to one mornh's vacation, pl~ a bonus of ten percen~ of annual salary/or the el~vcn~ mouth worked. In addition, by Article 16.01, employees are graated six Sh~tuWry holidays as well as "the holiday per/od of December 25th ~o Sanuavy lst inclusive", without reduction in salary. Article 11.01 B1 staics that tolal workload a~si~ncd and attributed by thc Colle§¢ ~o a ~eache~ shall n~ exceed 44 hours in ~uy week for up to ~6 wee~ in which ther~ are teaching con, aa hours for ~each~s in pos~-secondery progra~ and for up to 38 weeki for t~chcrs not iii post-secondary progr~m~. These totals are clearly less ~ both th~ twelve- month calendar yea~ and the ten.month academic year. Tile balance of the academic Year - tha~ is lo say, thc di~crcnce betwccl~ thc 36 or 2)8 wcck tolml teaching period and thc full ten months - is rcscrved, accor~lln2 to Article 11.01 B 1, 'for complemcntar/~,,_~ctions and professional development". Teachers are entitled, by Article !1.01 H, ~o at least ten workinl~ day~ of such professional devclopmcm in each academic year - which allowance is w/nclude one period of a~ least five consecutive days. $ The latter two al~ttses of thc Collecciv~ Agreemc~tt, howve, r, should be read to~cth~r Ia keepin~ with the professional responsibility of ~he leacher, non-teaching periocls are used for activities initia~ed by :he teach~ and by th~ Co]/cgc ~ part of the parties' mutual commitmcz~t to professionalism, te quality of eclucalion and professional development. Such actirities will be undettake~ by mutual come~t and agreement will not be unrcasomtbly withheld, such activities will neither be recorded nor scheduled except as in accordance with 3.1,01 ~ 1. According to the Collective Agreement, the.~ the academic year ~mists of teaching periods and no:-teackbg periods. It is apparen~ :hat teachers work throughout - and are paid for - both kinds of periods. The only difference is ia :he type of work pcfformecl, By Article 11.02 A 1 (a), activilie$ carried out during te~a~_hlqg periods arc to bc recorded on · e S~a.udard WorMo~ Form (SWF), which is attached as .a~peudix i to ~¢ CoLlectivc A~rccmenr By Article 11.01B 1, re~orded weekly workload - wkich cannot ~,ceed 44 hours · ¢onsist~ of teachi~/~ conta~ hours, atm'vuted hours for preparat/on, atl'n'~d l~our~ for evaluat/on and feedback, and con,iplemcntary flu~ons, Some scheduled a~d recorded complemeatary fu. nctiom are also performed during no.-teaching peaiods, as ca~ be seen from Article 11.01 B I. By ArLicle 11.01 Et ~ (ix), hours for curriculum zevi~v or course dcvelopmcn: assigned to a teacher in a non-~eachi~g period ar~ to be at~l'but~l on an hour for hour basis and recorded on the SWF. But generally speaking, work carried out during non-teaching per/ods is SWF nor sc]~eduled on a timetable. This is clca~ from Ard~l~ 11.08. Thc scmc of the Collective Ag;reen:en: h tha~ ~e ~.ajor t~on-:eachin~ ~ried ~ cover the weeks between the end d classes and thc cad of r. hc acadcT:n~c year on linc 30. But other z~on. teaching p~riods are certld-ly contemplated. For example, if a professor/s schedttl¢ct, pu~n_l to Article 15, to take vacation tlme in other than the months oLluly ot 22;5? '~'J'O$ A.ugus~, then thc remaln/.ug part of thc summer - provided the prafesaor is not xeaching for extra mond~ - w/Il co.l/tare a non-~eaching period. Without reviewing ~c specifics of each individual glievance, ii;/s apparent that the Collese has assi~ed unpaid leave da~ both in ~each~l~ periods and in what it considers w bi: non-leaching periods (such as March brcak), h is impo~l to eslablish, therefore, whet. bee there is auy difference ber,veen the v,vo categories/n ~he comext cd the present cornplaints. Since the co~?la/nauts have asked me to rule ou thc status of Christmas Eve and March break, I will do so in the the course of tl~e iollowb~g discmsion. Uapa~ Leave Dun~ Aron-2'~ M~cl~ ~re~. H I u~crs~d thc compl~ ~~, ~ ~c ~ bec~e prep~on ~d ~ua~on~rk ~ p~ce ~g M~ch ~e~ ~at week be a ~-~a~i~[ period. ~ ~ 2 ~ ~en~ I ~a~. ~ ~cle ~5.01 C, "~om br vacadom are no~ ~tcnded ~o pro~it ~lleles ~om ~ed~ non-t~~ ~ at C~~ ~ New Ye~'s ~ at ~y ~ ~d-~ ~". M~ therefore, c~ be a non-temPi ~od ff ~ C~ sch~s it ~ o~ ~ ~e CoUege po~ted out at ~c hc~g, ~ mmc ~e~ pe~ prep~fio~ ~on ~d d~g non-t~ pc~, ~ ~ not why they ge re~g ~m~sa~ for such a non-teaching pe~od. ~cor~g to ~d~e ~ven at ~e h~ m~cmcm h~ done so for post-second~ te~rs, De,tuber ~ re~ p~ ~ a ~~ ~od for non-post scc~d~ ~chcrs. Ja.,'i, gnmem of u~.tmid ~, On the question of whether the College can assign u~l:mid leave duys during non-teaching perio~ - March break, c~istmas ~-'ve or other similar portions of the ~cadcmic year - iT is not within my power tn decide. Nor can I deal with complaints about how those days have been assigaecL As Workload Resolution 800~1 ~5~I]03 ~q'el~P~ffO~ SA~Z gC~ gO£~, OT:OT ? Arbitzator, I sm limited to de-li,,g with workload complaints involving alleged infractions of Article$ ll.0t or 11.02 of thc Collective Agreeme.~t Though ii is true tlmt non-teschl~ periods are mentioned in A.~cles i1.01 B 1 ami 1LO1 D 3 (ix), thc operative cl~tlse ii Article 11.08. By ,a~icle 11.02 a 6 Cb). av..v grievances deal~g with Article 11.08 are to be handled in accordance with the separate procedure scl out i~ Article 32. The complainants must therefore seek another remedy for this part of their complaint. Teaching periods ~ ~y ~vered by ~ 11,01 ~ 1L~ of the Collie A~eeme~ ~ mc~ ~at I ~ dedd~ m Wor~aad ~i~r, whe~er ~ i~ about ~e Co~e~'s asi~ent of ~pad l~ve d~ such p~o& w~ ~olates abo~ ~o ~s. prided ~ app~t ~ola~oa ~ uot ov~ed by ~o~io~ of In all cases where ~paid leaw has been assigned during teaching periods, the Collc~ has chosen days or half-dal~ on which individual professors were no~ schcduleg to r~ach. A~ noted earlier, m~uagement insu~cted the compl~!n~ not to underiake any work-rela:ed duties on the day~ in quesriom In rcspomc to thc Union argument that it wa~ impossible for teachers ~0t to work, coumcl for the College identflled various ways in which teachers could have reduced their wotkkmd'. 1. Employees with sufficient assigned complementary ftmetion hours on their SWF$ could have ~educed their worlcload by no~ tmrfor~-_~ thc assigned complementary functions. 2. F_azployees cotfld hav~ reduced their workload by not performing the five hours of complementary functions - routkm out-of-elms assistance, normal aarnlni~:raiive tasks - which are assigned to all teachers as a weekly mi~im_,m. 3. Employees could have reduced their workload by uot performing the attributed functions of preparation, evaluation and feedback during the unpaid ler, e days. Subsections 34(3) and 34($) of the Social Coraracr,40 would prc~ail. 600~ :i~I~a]~03 .~IHI:LLHO~ 6ill ~£~ gOL,~, TT:OT $ Subsection 34($) sta~cs ~hit ~ employee h~ no d~t ta '~e ~e~ut ~ respect of ~om ~eu ~ ~ or her e~loyer ~ ~rd~e ~ e~pl~ee to whom · ~e~e ~~t a~ may ~e or ~bi~o~ pmced~ ~der ~c ~e~ve ~ement ~ ded~ ~y d~rcnce bc~c~ ~c empl~ee or ~ or h~ ~mpl~et ~g out of ~ I ~ad ~ese ~ se~o~, 5~(1) wo~d pr~ over 34(~ ~ ~e prat co~ ~1~ ~n~m ~re~s beacon ~e p~ ~ out of ~c pro~ developed by ~e Co~c~e ~ndcr P~ ~ o[ ~e ~. ~t ~o~cr way, w~e employees have ~ ~ht ~ ~ ~c acm~ ~si~m_cm of sk ~p~d lca~ ~ys, ~ey do have way ~ wMch ~e u~p~d leave h~ been ~pleme~ ~bsec:/on ~4(3) o[ the $o¢/d Cd~'r~ Ac~ ~cs ~a~ P~ ~ ~ a whole "pr~ ~er ~ ~ro~sion ~al relates to ho~, va~fic~, ho~s of work ~ ~c pay ~ a~ o~er ~ or ~c re~afio~ there~der or ~ ~ ~e~ve a~eemem', h h ~pon~t to ~0te ~t ~e ~t~l of ~ ~ is w ~t ~mploy~ W m~e~ c~en~c r~o~ ~ge~ ~, mong o~er m~n~ a~dF~g ~p~d leave ~. ~ ~e ~ele h~ ~e fi~t w ~ i~ e~loyees ~ days - or 48 hours - of leav~ ~d ~o dcdua ~at ~o~t of pay ~om ~e~ s~l~ ~t rhls does ~ m~ ~a emp~yees do not ~ve ~e ~ ~d~ thek co~ve ~~n~, ~ ~uie ~e way ~ w~ ~ose howl oi work ~e dedua~d ~om ~ek ove~ ~r~a& ~at fi~t ~ se~ oul ~ Subse~on 33(1)_ Under thc terms of A.nicle 11 of the Collective A~cemen~, workload is clcf~ned as follows: 11.01 A Bach teacher/hall have a worMoad ~at adhcr=s to this al'ticle 11.01 B 1 Total workload assigned and amibutcd by r2e College to a teacher shall not cxcced 44 hours in any one week for up to 36 weeks in wh/ch there are ~eaching con~ hours for teachars iu pos~-s=condary programs and for up '* '* 09/28/94 2~:~8 ~?05 $?2 $120 ROEDDE ~OP, RI$O~ ~011 9 to 38 weeks in which there arc teacht~E conmc~ hour~ in thc ca,se of teachers [..] Workload factors to be considered are: (1) te~¢hf~ ~o~t iD auributed hours for preparation (3) attributed hours for eva/u~/on cad feedback (4) am-~'buted hours fo~ co~lcmenm-y 11.01 B 2 A "teaching con. ct hour' is a Colle§c sched~lod ~eachi~ hour a~si~r~ed ~o the teacher by thc legislafion~ part/c~l~ly subscaiom 2~(1), 3~(1) and 34(3), managemen~ has the fi/hi ~o Bul management docs nol; have ~he ~n?et~ered prer0~ative to reduce attributed hottvs for preparation, evaluation and feedback, and for complernemary functions - unless teachi~ con~r~ hours are also reduced. My tee.sons a~e as follows: Prelo~ Evaluation and Feedback Articles 11.01 D 1 a~d 11.01 E I set out mathematical ratios of assigned ~eaching contact hours ~ attributed hours for preparation, evaluation and feedback m students. These ratios are a produc~ of the collect/Ye b~gain/ng process and represent a mean. La some cases, pxofcssors will spend mor~ g.me on l~eparztior~ evaluation and feedback r. hen is alloued ~o them by ~e formula, in other ce.scs less. In all casca, if a tcachirii con~ac~ hour is assi/ued by the College, r. ben professors have to prepare for i~, and they have to perform evaluation and feedback to students. For the College s/reply :o dlrea professors hot ~o perform such activities, yc~ still a~si~ them teaching con~ac~ hour, wo~Id be to unilaterally revise downward the formulas stip~a~d in 11.01 D I and 11.01 E it. The net effect, in most i/not all instances, would be an increase in workload. Compl~m~ ~n~o~ By Article 11.01 F, complemenTar), ~unc~ons ~ppr~ To ~e pro~o~ role of th~ ~e~ ~y be ~s~ed to a t~ by ~e Co~cge: ~ flor such ~om sh~ be at.bused ~ m ho~ ~or ho~ bas~. ~ ~an~ of ~ ~~ of fi~ ~o~ of ~e ~ h~ m~m~m wcc~ ~o~ w~oad sh~ ~ ~uted ~ f~: ~ee hou~ for rou~e outmf-~ ~s2~,~e to ~d~ smde~ ~o ho~ for norden_ ~s~agvc tss~ ~.ike thc preparat/on and evaluation factors, the atm~utiou ra~/os set otlt Article · in~uding the three hours for routtnc a~sistance and ~wo for ~ormal rusks - are the product of the collecttve b~rgaining process. Th~ too represent a mean. If ~he patties esl:imate that it takes a certain number of hours to produce a course outl/ne, then that number of hours will appear on a SWN under complementary f'unctious, Sometimes the rusk will take more 'dine, some*_i _re_es less. Thus, it is not suffidcnt for the College to tell professors not to perform complementary functions on a ~iven day if they still have to produce a course oudi~e, or assist indlv/d~__~ students, or.perform sdmlnt~trative tasks a~ other times or,he week or SWF p~riod. The basic result is a transfer of work tasks fi-om one I~riod to another. ~ summary, the Coll~g~ do~s not have the ~m%te. ral righ~ under either the Collect/ye Agreement or the $odal Contract legislation to revise ratios and arm'but/on formul~ which are the produa of ~he collect/v¢ barla/ning process. Thc Cotlege is entitled to m~et itt expellditure reduct/on targets by rcqu/rimg its employees to ~ake ~ da~ ~paid lear= of absence, sut ~ose leaves must be Ignuine. That is to say, they mu~ result/n measurable ~u~on in work performed. Whfl~ some of the zompl~si~ants hzv= been assigned unpa/d leave days durtug M~-~i~5 p=riods, there has been ao r~duct/au in 11 contact hours. I find, therefore, that the College ha~ violated Article 11.01 A of thc Collective A~'eemellt In the event c~ my finding ~ ~vour of the complai~ant~ the panics have asked me m provide a resolut[o~. They agreed that it wonld be i~approl~ate - as well as time- constun~g ~nd expensive - f~ t~- WRA to deal with all o~ ~e compla~ts on an Ludivtdual basLs. Since I have found in favour of those individual teachers who have been assail ~mpald leave days durin$ a teaching p~rlod, I refer their complaints back to the College Workload MonJt~d~ G-~oup (CWlVIG). In e~ch c~.~e, I cLLrect the Group to :cr.~lculate the six u:~paJd leave days on the followi~ principles, and ~n the foLLowMg order o£ priority: · There shall be a balanced rcclu~on in teaching contact hour, with the actuaJ number of hou:s asslg~ed p~r week exprcsscd as a percentage of the m~__~mum wccMy total of 44 hour~ prc~ided in Article 11.01 B. I ~ the following axamplea: Teacher A h~ 14 wceMy teach~,~g contact hours. This represe, uts 32% of a posaiblc maximum workload of 44 hours. Since 6 days or 48 hours weft required to be deducted ~ tmpaid lcave, the Collese should have deducted 32% - at 15.$6 hours - of that total from teachin/contact hours. Teacher B has 6 we~kly teachi~ contact hours. This represeati 14~ of maximum workload, The proper deduction should have been 6.72 hours of the 48 hour total · There shall be a~ ~ppropfiate reduction L~ a~te~ hou~ for predation, ~v~uafion ~d feedback to ~n~, ~ted on ~ b~s of ~c ~ set o~ on ~e ~d~ ~ache~s S~. ~pcn~ ~ ~c number of co.scs ~u~t, ~ ~on ~y ~, ~ such ~, ~e n~er of ho~s ~ ~ch co.se ~ bc ~:c~cd ~ a ~rc~e of the tOt~, ~ ~en m~p~ed ~ ~c ~opfia~ faaors, ~ ff one of Tether A's s~ ~u~es has been ~si~d 4 tea~i contaa ho~s out of ~e 14 w~e~y ho~, ~t repr~en~ 29~, or 4.45 ~ of ~e lf.~g wMch sho~d ~e been d~u~ ~ p~ of~e 12 unpaig leave. I£ th~ course was BsmbILs~ed ,% the appUcable factors would bc muhiptfcd by 4.42 t0 arrive ~t the hmu~ cleduc~ecl for preparat[o,~ ~;d eval~on. · Finally, assi~¢d complementary hours shall bc reduced by ~hc appropriate penn, age, calculated i~ the same f~hion. Since the weekly mini~)~ of 5 complementary hours represemt~ 1i% of the 44-hour total for ail teachers, th~.~ would constitute 5.28 out of the unpaid leave total of ~8 hours. I rcalize 0~ in thc present instance, ~c six ~si~ ~d p~ ~ b~cn dcdu~e~ ~c U~on ~ ~ked ~b~ ~c leave ~ ~ nu~ifiod ~ ~e ~caed ~ache~ co~emated. S~ca ~e ~Bege hu, ~ ~ ~w, made a ge~c a~empt m ~plement a prelim ~er P~ ~ of ~ ~, s~h a solution wo~d be ~ro~a~. It ~ pm~le, however, ~at ~e ove~ ~G to m~e ~at dele~in~o~ and to - b~h of'~e ~a set out ~ ~de 11.01 K 4. ~n~act lc~la~on, the CoUege sh~ll ~ve &e epee: of ps, hi su~ ~e~e or of ~ng ~ ~~ ~her c~~a~g ~e o~ ~ pay, ~ &e I9~5 aca~e year.' In case of any m2r~solved problems, the Workload Resolution Arbitrator should rema~ seized of the maltcr. ,. Respec~tliy submitted, olufion ArMtrator SClrte:mb~r 28, ~19~4