Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 05-06-14 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE COLLEGES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union ("the Union") AND St. Lawrence College of Applied Arts & Technology ("the College") And in the matter of grievance # 2004-0418-0004, filed in respect of a layoff that took place in November 2004. BEFORE: R.O. MacDowell (sole arbitrator) APPEARANCES: For the Union: Stephen Lavender (counsel) John Molleson Julie Lott For the College: Pat Brethour (counsel) Cindy Bleakney A hearing in this matter was scheduled to begin in Kingston, Ontario, on June 13, 2004. AWARD In November 2004, the College was required to consider the layoff of certain employees represented by the union. The grievance that gives rise to this arbitration proceeding (grievance # 2004-0418-004) was filed in connection with that layoff. The parties are agreed that I have been properly appointed under the terms of the collective agreement, and I have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters in dispute between them -- including any "pre!imina~, issues", or questions respecting "arbitrability". However, for present purposes, it is unnecessary to set out the details of grievance # 2004-0418-0004; because the particular matter that gave rise to this proceeding was eventually resolved, and - perhaps more significantly - the parties took the opportunity to explore, and resolve some other, more general concerns, about the way in which layoffs should be effected. The parties' understandings in this regard, are reflected in an agreed-upon "protocol" for application at St. Lawrence College, which reads as follows: 1. The parties agree that the prospect of a layoff creates a stressful time for the employer, for the union, and for the employees potentially affected. 2. The parties further agree that the implementation of any layoff raises administrative and operational difficulties, that may be moderated by union participation in the process. 3. The parties also agree that, in the shadow of a potential layoff, it is highly desirable to avoid misunderstandings and miscommunication. 4 The parties acknowledge, in accordance with Article 15, that it is the College's determination as to whether layoffs are necessary, and as to which employees will be reassigned and which employees will be laid off 5. However, upon any application of Article 15.2, the parties agree that the list of redundant positions shall be made available to the union, no later than the first Employment Stability Committee ("ESC") meeting held in accordance with Article 15.3.1. 6. The parties confirm that all information presented at the ESC , including the list of redundancies, shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person for any reason, except as required by law. This requirement of confidentiality shall remain in effect until such requirement is withdrawn by mutual agreement. 7. Following notice of layoff being provided to affected employees under Article 15.3.5, the parties agree that continued discussions will occur, as necessary, during the application of the bumping procedure in Article 15.4.3, in order to attempt to minimize the dislocation of employees. 8. The parties agree that such continued discussions will occur at the Kingston campus, and may take place outside of regular working hours. 9. The parties agree that during such continued discussions, the College will have available for review the employment files of those employees whose positions have been declared redundant or those employees who have been displaced through the application of Article 15.4.3. 10. The parties acknowledge that it is imperative that the layoff process be implemented expeditiously, and further, that such continued discussions will not cause any delay to the layoff procedure outlined in article 15.4 The parties have agreed that the above-noted understandings may be recorded in a decision and "consent order" of this board of arbitration; and that, on that basis, grievance number # 2004-0418-0004 will be withdrawn. Having regard to the foregoing, the parties are directed to adhere to the understandings and undertakings to which they have agreed. The parties are further agreed that I may remain seized in the event that there is any difficulty in implementing their agreement; however, subject to that caveat, this arbitration proceeding in hereby terminated. Finally, while it is perhaps unnecessary to do so, I wish to commend the parties (and their counsel) for their efforts in bringing this matter to a successful conclusion, without the costs and uncertainties of litigation. Indeed, it is to be hoped that the shared understandings recorded above, will go some way toward avoiding layoff grievances of the kind that led to this arbitration proceeding. Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of June 2005. R.O. MacDowell, sole arbitrator