Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 00-00-00 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 245 (hereinafter called the Union) - and - SHERIDAN COLLEGE (hereinafter called the College) - and - CLASSIFICATION GRIEVANCES SOLE ARBITRATOR PROFESSOR lAN A. HUNTER APPEARANCES: FOR THE UNION: Mr. Jay Jackson, President, O.P.S.E.U., Local 245 Ms. Norma Peddington-Drabble FOR THE COLLEGE: Mr. Dan Sibley, Director of Human Resources, Sheridan College AN ARBITRATION HEARING WAS HELD IN OAKVlLLE, ONTARIO ON OCTOBER 12, 2000 AWARD (1) Introduction On July 11, 2000 I was notified that I had been selected, by mutual agreement, to act as an expedited arbitrator in a number of individual grievances between O.P.S.E.U., Local 245 and Sheridan College. The arbitration hearing date agreed to was October 12, 2000. In late September I received briefs from both the Union and the College as required pursuant to the expedited arbitration process. The briefs were very extensive (both in excess of two hundred (200) pages). When I saw the briefs, and the nature and number of issues in dispute, I contacted the College and the Union to express my reservations about whether this case was suitable for the expedited process. After both parties had reflected on that issue, I was advised by telephone that the Union considered that the case could be dealt with through the expedited process. The College concluded that it could not, and requested me to exercise my discretion (pursuant to Article 18.4.4 of the Collective Agreement), to refer the grievances to an Arbitration 3 Board. Since the parties were not agreed on this issue, I directed that this matter be fully argued before me at the outset of the arbitration hearing on October 12, 2000. (2) The Issue The sole issue before me at this time is: Is this an appropriate case for the expedited arbitration process (Article 18.4.3) or should these grievances be referred to an Arbitration Board (pursuant to Article 18.4.4)? (3) Decision In making my decision, I have considered the oral submissions made to me by representatives of the College and the Union on October 12, 2000. I have also considered, and weighed, the following factors: (1) There are fifteen (15) individual grievances, all from persons who at the date of the grievance were classified as Clerk General D in the Registrar's office. 4 (2) The last P.D.F. prior to the grievances dates from 1994. The parties met several times (the meetings were characterized by both sides as "lengthy and frustrating") in unsuccessful attempts to agree on a more current P.D.F.. (3) Of the twelve (12) evaluation criteria (or job factors) used in core point rating, only Training/Technical Skill and Experience are agreed (at 71 and 45 points respectively). The other ten (10) job factors are in dispute. (4) The College brief cites an arbitration award between O.P.S.E.U., Local 109 and Fanshawe Colle.qe (College brief, Tab U). Article 18.4.3.6 of the Collective Agreement gives guidance on the kind of hearing anticipated by the parties as appropriate to expedited arbitration: "The parties agree that the process shall be informal and that legalistic processes normally used in conventional arbitration shall not be used .... One (1) person from each side will be designated as spokesperson. The Arbitrator may ask questions of any of the Union or Management representatives present. The spokesperson for each party may give a summary statement normally not exceeding fifteen (15) minutes at the conclusion of the question period .... " Following a training session in 1995, expedited arbitrators received a letter from the Joint Classification Committee that states, in part: "The Joint Classification Committee also believes that if authorities are needed to support either party's case, then the grievance should be referred to an Arbitration Board". 5 At the arbitration hearing on October 12, 2000 Mr. Jackson reviewed the negotiations leading to joint agreement between O.P.S.E.U. and the Council of Regents on an expedited arbitration process for classification grievances. He submitted that this expedited process was to be the norm; referral of classification cases to an Arbitration Board should be the exception. Despite the number of grievors (fifteen), and the number of job factors in dispute (ten), he submitted that "rough justice" could still be done through the expedited arbitration process. Mr. Sibley, for the College, submitted that the number of grievors; the two different locations of registration activities (the Trafalgar Road campus and the Davis campus); the number of job factors in dispute; and the fact that, despite extensive negotiations, there was still no agreement on the P.D.F.; all made this case unsuitable for expedited arbitration, and he urged me to refer the grievances to a Board pursuant to Article 18.4.4. Article 18.4.4 states: "The Arbitrator appointed under Article 18.4.3.1 may decide that a particular grievance should be referred to an Arbitration Board on receipt of the documents referred to in Article 18.4.3.3 or in Article 18.4.3.4 or at the hearing. Either party may recommend such referral in its written submission to the Arbitrator." In the case before me, I have concluded that justice cannot be done to these grievances using the very circumscribed expedited process. There are fifteen (15) grievances. There is no agreement on the content of the P.D.F.. Ten (10) of the twelve (12) job factors are in dispute. And the College is relying on at least one prior decision. 6 In my experience as an expedited arbitrator, there is usually only one witness for the Union (the grievor) and one for the College (usually the grievor's Supervisor). The questions are put by the arbitrator. The process is referred to as an arbitration-driven model. The process works well, in my opinion, where there are discreet, relatively narrow factual differences between the parties. In this case, everything ("the whole ball of wax" to use a colloquialism) is in dispute. It is inconceivable to me that justice could be done to all of the outstanding issues between these parties within the constraints imposed by the expedited arbitration process. The Union indicated that at least two (2) of the grievors (one from each location) would testify; the other thirteen (13) grievors wish to attend any hearings, and may wish to speak in order to elaborate "nuances of difference"concerning the position. The College indicated that at least two (2) supervisors will testify, and Mr. Sibley will also seek to lead evidence concerning wholesale changes in the process of student registration at Sheridan College. He referred to calling "substantial evidence". The number of witnesses each side seeks to call would, almost alone, have made this case inappropriate for expedited arbitration. Both sides referred me to prior arbitration decisions on this issue. It goes without saying that each case is unique and must be determined on its own facts. In this case, I find myself in agreement with Arbitrator Knopf in O.P.S.E.U.v. Geor.qe Brown Colle.qe (Venturo; January 3, 1989) who wrote: "... As the parties outlined their arguments, it became crystal clear to this arbitrator that this is not an appropriate case to be dealt with by way of expedited arbitration. The expedited arbitration process involves a limited scope of factual inquiry because of the limit on witnesses. It also requires that the arbitrator conduct the bulk of the inquiry based upon the briefs submitted. But the issues raised by these parties in this case demand a fuller and more detailed inquiry .... Thus, pursuant to Article 18.4.5, I ordered at the hearing that this case be adjourned to be scheduled forthwith before an arbitration board selected in accordance with Article 18.4.5.1. I encourage both parties to discuss the issues together to see if any further concessions can be made to limit the amount of factual issues before the arbitration board .... Accordingly, I exercise my discretion to refer all of these grievances to an Arbitration Board, and I do so pursuant to Article 18.4.4 of the Collective Agreement. The fifteen (15) grievances should be scheduled forthwith before an Arbitration Board. Dated at the City of London this day of ,2000. Professor lan A. Hunter Arbitrator