HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 04-10-20 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
DURHAM COLLEGE
(the "college")
-and-
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
(the "union")
AND IN THE MATTER OF OPSEU Grievance No. 2004-0353-0005 and 2004-
0354 -0012.
BOARD OF ARBITRATION: D.D. Carter, Chair
R. J. O~Connor, College Nominee
M. Sullivan, Union Nominee
APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION:
H. Cook, Grievance Officer
J. Bisset, Chief Steward Local 354
J. M. White, Local 354
J. Helps, Local 353
R. Memisz, Local 353
APPEAI~NCES FOR THE EMPLOYER:
P. J. Thorup, Counsel
R. Aprile, Vice-President, Facilities and Ancillary
Services
A hearing of this matter was held at Toronto, Ontario, on October 7, 2004.
AWARD
These two grievances, one from the support bargaining unit and the other
from the academic bargaining unit, allege that the college was in violation of both
past practices and the collective agreement by increasing the fees that it charged
bargaining unit members for parking at the college. The grievances request a
direction that there be no increase in parking fees for bargaining unit members
above the increase from the academic year 2002-2003 and a direction that a
complete investigation of all college financial records and transactions be
conducted by an independent auditor. At the outset of the hearing, however, the
college raised a preliminary objection that the grievances, because they did not
relate to a violation of the collective agreement, were not arbitrable.
It is necessary to set out the facts underlying the grievances before dealing
with this preliminary objection. It was not disputed that the arrival of the
University of Ontario Institute of Technology at the college's Oshawa campus
caused a significant alteration of the parking facilities at that campus. During the
academic year 2002 -2003~ the college eliminated 1000 parking spaces that had
previously existed and replaced them with 2000 spaces to serve both the college
and the new university. At about the same time the college's parking facilities
were upgraded through paving, the provision of better lighting, and the provision
of improved security.
These changes, however, carried with them significantly higher parking fees
for the users. Many of these users were bargaining unit members who had no other
reasonable alternative than to commute to their work by car and to use the college's
parking facilities. In the academic year 2002-2003 the annual parking fee at the
Oshawa campus was $140 per year; in the academic year 2003-2004 that fee
increased to $192; and in the current academic year it increased to $275. Future
increases in the parking fee are anticipated since the college is still not recovering
the full cost of providing parking at the campus.
Of particular concern to the union was the increase in costs associated with
the arrival of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. A major
component of current parking costs is amortization of the construction costs of $7
million that relate primarily to the alteration of the parking facilities required
because of the university's presence on the Oshawa campus. These amortization
costs represented $517~202 of the $1,101,781 total annual cost of providing the
parking facilities.
The employer submitted that the fee increases were intended to recover the
costs associated with providing its parking facilities and that at this point it had not
even reached the point of full cost recovery. In light of these facts it argued that
the parking fee could not be regarded in any way as an indirect tax upon the wages
of bargaining unit members. The employer further argued that, since all users paid
the same fee for parking, its actions in no way discriminated against bargaining
unit members. It followed, therefore, that its actions clearly fell within the
managerial discretion provided under article 6 of the collective agreement and that
the two grievances were not arbitrable.
The union argued that the members of the bargaining unit were paying costs
associated with the arrival of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. If
the uniYersity had not come to the Oshawa campus, there would have been no need
to alter the existing parking facilities and significant construction costs would not
have been incurred. These fee increases, moreover, had had a substantial impact
on bargaining unit members who had no alternative other than to commute to work
by car and to use the college parking facilities. In the circumstances, the union
argued, this board had jurisdiction to review the exercise of the college's
managerial discretion under article 6 of the collective agreement.
That article, titled '~Management Function" reads:
6.01 it is the exclusive function of the Colleges to:
(i) maintain order, discipline and efficiency;
(ii) hire, discharge, transfer, classify, assign, appoint, promote,
demote, layoff, recall and suspend or otherwise discipline employees
subject to the right to lodge a grievance in the manner and to the
extent provided in this Agreement;
(iii) manage the college and, without restricting the generality of the
foregoing, the right to plan, direct and control operations, facilities,
programs, courses, systems and procedures, direct its personnel,
determine complement, organization, methods and the number,
location and classification of personnel required from time to time, the
number and location of campuses and facilities, services to be
performed, the scheduling of assignments and work, the extension,
limitation, curtailment, or cessation of operations and all other fights
and responsibilities not specifically modified elsewhere in this
Agreement.
6.02 The Colleges agree that these functions will be exercised in a
manner consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
The union's argument in this case would have considerable force if the
college have been using its parking facilities to generate revenue above and beyond
the costs of providing the facility or had discriminated against bargaining unit
members by imposing upon them a higher fee than that charged to other users. On
the facts befbre this board, however, it is clear that the parking fees imposed so far
have fallen short of even recovering the full cost of providing the parking facilities.
It is also clear that bargaining unit members pay exactly the same fees as other
users of the parking facilities.
There is no doubt that a substantial component of the recent fee increases
relate to the alteration of parking facilities that resulted frOm the arrival of the
University of Ontario Institute of Technology at the college's Oshawa campus. A
reading of article 6 of the collective agreement, however, reveals that it is well
within the managerial discretion of the college to make new institutional
arrangements for bona fide educational reasons. There was no argument that the
establishment of the new university at the Oshawa campus of the college was
something other than a bona fide educational initiative.
Nevertheless, it is quite understandable that bargaining unit members
would be upset over what was clearly a substantial increase in their cost to
commuting to work. The fee increases, however, were not a revenue grab but an
attempt to recover the cost of providing parking facilities from those who used
these facilities. This cost recovery, moreover, was imposed on all users of the
parking facility and not just confined to bargaining unit members. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the fees constituted a tax on the wages of bargaining unit
members or constituted improper discrimination by requiring bargaining unit
members to bear an unfair share of the cost of the provision of parking facilties.
In the circumstances the board concludes that there is no possibility that the
college's action could constitute a breach of article 6 or a breach of any other
provision of the collective agreement. The board, therefore, has no choice but to
find that these two grievances are not arbitrable.
Dated at Kingston, Ontario, this 20th day of October, 2004.
D. D. Carter, Chair
,R. J. O'Connor"
I concur
R.J. O'Connor, College Nominee
"M. Sullivan"
I concur
M. Sullivan, Union Nominee