Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDavis 00-07-10IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: Sault College (College) and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union) (Support/Grievor: Ross Davis) (OPSEU #: 99A233 ) BEFORE: Helen Finley . David Guptill College Sherril Murray Union Nominee APpEARANcEs: For the College: David Brady, Counsel Rhonda Wright - Manager, Employee Relations Jim Erb - Registrar For the Union: ' Tim Banasik - Grievance Officer Jay Jackson- Support Staff Divisional Executive Doris St. Pierre - Local' President (Support) Ross Davis - Grievor A hearing in this matter was held in Sault Ste. Marie on (September 30, 1999) and on February 2 & 3, 2000 #99A233 (Support) DECISION The Cn'ievor, Ross Davis, is one of a number of employees of Sault College who enrol in a wide variety of courses offered by the College. Their participation is most often on a part-time basis. The employees do this for both personal and professional development and it is agreed by the parties that the Co}lege benefits from the resulting improved'~ski'll, l~Vels::°£these employees. In ,''.i ~'- ',.~,i , :.. .~ .,. . 7 ~ · ': 1993, the parties negotiated a new article into the "Edueation'~sectipn'0f~their Collective Agreement. It addressed the issue of course tuition fees for SupPort :Staff Employees:in ~the college system. Article 9.4 reads as follows: ....-'~ . :'!.. !.. :;.. i: .: .~.:: .... An employee in.the bargaining unitmay take, for a tuition fee oflnot m0re~than ..... twenty dollars' ($20.00) per COurse; on the employee's own time: ,':. ":" ''~ ' . · .~: ', ::': :"': (a) Ministry approved programs or courses; or :. !. :-, '. . , ~ ',.: :-.r : .... (b) other courses or programs as are mutually agreed, ' ' '. .: which the College currently offers. The employee must meet the College entrance and admission requirements and is subject to academic poli6ies. Five individuals testified at this hearing: Walter Kenny Member of the Council of Regents Bargaining Team in 1993 Jay Jackson Member of the OPSEU Bargaining Team in 1993 Ross Davis Support staff employee at Sault College since 1978; support services officer; currently union steward; part-time student; Grievor Doris St. Pierre Support Staff Employee at Sault College since 1988; Clerk in the Ancillary Services Office; member of the union local in 1997: president of the union local Jim Erb Employee of Sault College since 1971; college registrar since 1981. The evidence demonstrated that during the negotiations the Union had asked for free access to courses for its members, the Colleges had countered with a tuition fee maximum of twenty dollars ($20.00), a requirement for grant eligibility. The Uni_o...n agreed to the twe_ntY dollar ($20.00) maximum tuition fee and the parties agreed on the above wording. There was no discussion around the meaning of the terms. The wording has not changed since the incorporation of this article into the Collective Agreement. The economic and procedural contexts, however, have. It is these changes and the addition of local, mandatory, course- related administration fees for part-time students that is the basis of this grievance. Such fees had been payable by full-time students for some time. Prior to 1996, approval of non-tuition related fees was the responsibility of the Ministry. '" :~"' However, 'in 1996, a new protocOl w~ introduced which involved the initiation °f nOn-.tuition .:~.~i '.~:~!...'~i:.~! ~.,:~ related, fees by students, theapPr6~:b~i~iO~:'Senior management and the B°ardi°fGb~0~s, on a guideline baSis (e.'gl~ ~uai tuitionfee'increaSe) but during .that'Yea~;the;)i i::- ~ "BoardsOf Governors were given latitude in Setting~.fees:~thin. ministry-es~blished :guidelines:':: " ~ !' Universal/~ndatory fees and' user feeSleviedin.addi~ion to ~the tuition,feesare c '~ '" throughout the college sYstem. The Ministry referS, m them: as non,tuition related· inCidental fees. Some are referred to as ancillary fees· and ineidentalstudent fees. enrolled as full-time students (although they were few in number) have always paid the same non-tuition related fees as other full-time students. The application of the administrative fee to part-time students came about as a result of a 1996/1997 student-government initiative. It was the view of the student government that part-time students should shoulder their share of costs not covered by the tuition fee. Ms. St. Pierre testified that the reason the matter came to the Board of Governors was that there was an inequity between full and part-time students because the full-time students were assessed a fee that included these administrative fees that part-time students were not being charged. The student government took its recommendation to the Board of Governors where it was confirmed. In the fall of 1997, Sault College began charging staff members taking part-time courses, an administrative fee, distinct from and in addition to the tuition fee. It had already been charging a ten dollar ($10.00) non-refundable administration fee as part of the tuition fee. For the support staff members taking courses on a part-time basis this meant they were assessed an amount over and above the tuition fee of not more than twenty dollars ($20.00).per course stipulated in Article 9.4. The grievance of Mr. Davis which was filed at that time alleges a violation of that article and asks for a "refund of"Administration [Emphasis added] "fee. to stafF'. Mr. Davis's course fees were $175.20 (including the $10.00 non-refundable administration fee) + $14.40 (30¢ per course hom'administrative fee). He was required to. pay::- :'-: :..-i,: ::.;-: ,.,: .... "" ~ i : .': ! Jr"!','"'(: ":'~':' '. · ,~ :Mr.;Davis,testified that:during his employment at:~the,C:°llege ~e had.:taken'a number of courses; :;::. and~had.:never; prior:to:. September 1997, :paid fees:~0ve~iand:above the.. $20c.00. ,'He acknowledged~: ~:~.~ ,,~:: that he had; however, purchased texts from the bookSt0marid¢'had.to bring a couple of floppy ~-: :'.~ ~diSks..t0 ¢lass'?~It :was Mr.~Davls. ' '.'s:wew' that "'~f the:course.outline'" ..... haditadidated.tlmt materiais ~· were included then it would be part of the twenty dollars;($20~00), if it said ,'text ;book'~;,then [he] would get the text" and "if it indicated flopPy disks, [he] would'do so".. He also brought binder and pencil to a class, where the instructor provided handouts. Mr. Davis referred to "supply costs" and gave the following examples: the cost of clay for a pottery class, and supplying diskettes for a computer class. In his view, a support staff member taking a course should be required to pay no more than twenty dollars ($20.00) + the cost of supply items of which notice was given at the time of the advertising of the course. It was clarified that the "course outline referred to by Mr. Davis was in Career Paths, an information sheet put out by the College. Mr. Davis was asked if, in his opinion, there was any difference between course fees. and tuition fees and he replied that he considered they were one and the same. Doris St. Pierre explained that the Ancillary Services Office deals with residences, campus shop, food services, parking, lockers and other fee items that are not funded through the provincial grant. She testified that in September 1997, she found out from support staff bargaining unit members who had enrolled in certain courses, that they were being charged an additional fee. She brought the levying of the additional fee to the attention of the union president and the matter was brought to the Union College Committee (UCC). Two aspects of the fee application in particular caused concern and confusion between the parties. The first was the assignment of a portion of the administrative fee to the parking fund, the second, although the parties may not have been aware of it at the time, was the inconsistent and imprecise use of fee terminology. In 1997 parking fees were charged to both staff and full-time students. Staff members paid $125.00 plus~ :that year to park in an non-designated spot in,a.designated lot close to the building. They: Were given an access card which activateS ~i :gate~,::.i ~:Smdents paid $150.00 + tax for the right to park inan non-designated spot in a designated~lpt further~away from.the..building. :'.: They could also .park:there. On a user .pay basis. This lothad~ 2~entran~smanned 'by-security ::.;. · ?::....~. ..... guards between 7:.00.pm,and3:00pm. · After hours, .the?entran~CeS;to~e~parldng~totS were. not · ~,.,.-'. : .,..: .' :.:staffed and no one 'collected monies,,,from:the user-pay, parkers? ~Thisl;Was:~ferre&toias ,?the:gates ',,.., :~:b reg.:rinsed and. it: meant that. all parking-lotswere accessible without:charge b~t3at, e~n .of 3:00. p.m. and 7:00 a.m. In order to offset this"losS .in potenti'al parking reVenUe, a poffion of. ' ,the administrative fee was directed to the parking fund. The rest Wentto technology uPgrade and extended computer lab hours. Ms. St. Pierre's view of the levying of the administrative fee in September 1997 was "knowing that staff have 9.4 in the Collective Agreement [she] never expected they were referring to staff, [she] thought it was part-time students, not staff". In her view, "staff were neither [full-time or part-time students]" and were "covered under Article 9.4 supra in the amount [they] could be charged to take a course". According to Ms. St. Pierre, some members of staff enrolled as part-time students and who had already paid for parking felt they were being charged twice for the privilege of parking, and the same situation obtained for the students who had paid the parking fee. Ms. St. Pierre testified that "night school students had to pay for parking through the administrative fee". In the opinion of Ms. St. Pierre, the course fee includes the cost of offering the program, with the exception of materials she would take with her like a floppy disk or supplies. Supply fees, she testified, are different in nature from course fees, while tuition fees are the cost of running the course such as "turning lights on, paying teachers' salaries, and chalk in the classroom", and ancillary fees are "course fees - part of running the organization and would be.captured under both". She then explained that "administrative fees come under course fees and tuition fees, and are part of running the organization". Mr. Erb, the Registrar expl~ned!,that the tuition fee is not intended to represene, the cost of running the College. It.is, rather; i the s ..tudent's contribution to general~ 0peratingfunds:.~ The ~.amount contributed by students in,the ~form of tuition fees, is approximately.'300/o o~the~cost:of, ...: ~nga college program~ .: .It W~.,view tha?a,staffperson becomes~ a:student.-Whenthey :Mr. Erb~was asked to explain theCanada Custoiris and~:Revenue.Agency (formerly ReVenue :Canada) T220A form. He testified.that, the form: identifies .the'amount of tuition fees that a student pays and this figure is provided by the College for the student to use as the basis for a tax' deduction when he or she is filing his/her income tax return. The form differentiates between non-residents and residents. Full-time students residing away from home are eligible to claim up to $200.00 per month in living expenses + the tuition fees associated with the program they are in. Part-time students, on the other hand can only claim tuition fees and in this respect there is a minimum threshold of $100.00. He explained that non-tuition, related incidental fees are "explicitly not included" and that Canada Customs and Revenue Agency expects the institution to define what constitutes tuition fees but sets no guidelines. Mr. Erb also testified that a distinction is made in two areas in the provincial grants to Sault College: · in the actual report to generate enrolment grants where the roles require specifically that the College collect a tuition fee. · in the ministry regulations the collection of fees in addition to tuition fees to offset other costs, and these two fees are generally referred to as tuition fees and non-tuition related fees. Since 1991, according to Mr. Erb, there has been a lengthy fee list in these guidelines which is not, however, exhaustive. Some of the fees included under the non-tuition fee guidelines are student government, student identification, administrative, student health insurance, athletic, and technical fees. Certain categories are specifically excluded from the non-tuition related fee list. For example, building maintenance, supply fees ( e.g. welding rods'for a Welding course) and mandatory field trips are not included in the non-tuition related fees, while both universal and user-pay parking fees are included. The regulation, however, states that the College can ·.~ ... ~.,: !' ~ :~)..: initiate new fees or increase existing fees,. . .and.the. guidelines stipulate' that the student, government. ~ :.. ·., : .is to be involved in decision making regarding ancillary fees.. The distinction, according t0:Mr..:: ~.::i "i ? !"~;,::'~,-~:!:!.'-, !~. :,2!¢.: . , ~ ,-.,.. .: .... ' -: .... : ,~ · · Erb, demonstrates what the provincial grants are'riot'going to cover and it is then uP.'/o the :~: '~:..:'::: College to raise additional fees ifitwants to pr6 de.these services, i: ': ....... ~..,'.: :: . .'. 17.,~,: . "~-,, '. , : ': . .. ' , , : z ,'., The fee levied for parking is, in Mr. Erb's words;ia fion.-,reia:ted .tuition fee that,Sault College i':i? .~. has assessed as both a universal and user-pay fee-~'..)~:Fe~s:'l~viei~!f0r,patldng;',teehniCal upgrades::'" .i · i"', "i ..::,i!~':' !;'; .i-;:' .':,~ "i- ~';::.:'ii~;:;;' · ..:' ' ' ' '.: , .: .: · : ~ .'" ~ ,' - and extended hours would, he testified, fall into the category. 6f non;tuitiOn related, fees:and, as,~':' ' they have been established at Sault College, theY would be universal fees and as. such would be ': .... : '~. assessed to all full-time and part-time students. In the technology field, the College funds the initial purchase of the computers and a student-initiated technology fee contributes to comPuter updating and upgrading, as well as to the extension of computer lab hours under the heading of non-tuition related fees. Mr. Erb used the example of student lockers to distinguish between universal/mandatory and user-pay fees. He testified that initially students were assigned lockers on a user-pay basis. However, when the demand increased in the 1980s, the College "changed direction and a locker fee was levied on all full-time students, that is, universally. Mr. Erb was asked to clarify the use of terminology and he explained that the term which has been in use from at least 1996 is course fee and that fee consists of the tuition fee + the non- tuition related incidental fees. "07/19/2000 08:36 613-548-7629 HELEN FINLEY PAGE 82 ARGUME~ The Union takes the position that the meaning of the term tuition in Article 9.4 is the broader meaning and equates to '~the portion of all of the costs associated with the delivery of education that is payable by students". It is, "what students have to pay" to participate in a course, Mr. Banas~ argued, dud Article 9,4 guarantees qualified support staff entry th the ~oU~se for the payment of $20.00 whether or not other fees are payable by the students. IR his view, the result of the article is that a distinction is drawn between part-time students and part-time students who arc support staff. In any case, the.term tuiflon.fees;.acc0rdin~ g to the Union, encompasses whatev~.enrolment charges students have to-incurwh~g a~'eoursc, with thc exception of Costs..~for'~supplies or materials for their own pers°nal/!~IS~ Suchi ..as:paints and paint brushes', fox:., [2'; ~'; '~: :i' · :. ."~' ~ '; ": ' '' ' ' " m-art classy.' Changes. in gore ,ramen, t fundi~,,levelss'o~.neW'~ounth~.proCedures,~tO not.alldw::,:.~;,. :'i~ ....the.College ~to unilaterally chauge the meaning of.tlie :~ord ~iti-on ,widiSh Was:negotiated.bY.the ' ., · :. ... .~i:.~i..¥ ". : ii.:i: .' . : . . . ~' - . ' · . ( ....''. .... "; ,;. . , . ,., : . · .: ]. :.' .,. , . .:...:,-.-. ,. .. .... ,. ~-., ~!, .:; '~.. ! - ~.. , . ': ~t , .:, Mr/.Banasik .views ~ici.~i-~.4.as. cteatii~g"an e!ititleinent for supPo~::~ta~'me~ib~S on':the' :: ~':'; condition that they meet 3 conditions: : ' ;' ' · .'~ _: ', · pay a tuition fee of not more than $20.00 ' '.' : · meet the entrance and admission ~luirements, and · subject themselves to academic policies. The article does ~ot go on to say, he pointed out, that they would or could be subject to incidental fe~$. Mr. Banasik also asked the Board to consider that students who are support staffmvmb~rs are distinct from other students since they provide a t~ciprocal benefit to the college through ~eir acquisition of mutually beneficial skills. The tuition fee article is in the "EDUCATION" article along with professional development, a recognized mutually beneficial undertaking. Further, '~ralsing of gates, technical upgrading and g~noral s~ices such as extended hours" identified by the College as components of the administrative fee, ar~ costs which would fall under the heading of "g~r~e, xal Ol~ting co~t~x'.'..f~s defined by both Mr. Rrb and t}te (Corrected versiox~*pp7&g - Corrections underlined p7 last line, p8 1st line- July 19,2000) 7 "''~7/1912000 08:3S 513-548-7629 HELEN FINLEY PAGE 83 Should the Board find that the meaning of tuition fees is ambiguous, the Union beliews that the evidence of negotiations during the collective bargaining process demolxstrates that this fee was "meant to cover all of the costs that a staff member would have to incur to enrol in courses". Mr. Ba~a-qik argued, in the alternative, that in the event the Board finds that the College is not violating the strict language of Article 9.4 by introducing neW monetary requiremexits, the College would be estopped from implementing such fees lmeause of its past practice since 1991, of not charging administrative fees to support staff, over and above the $20,00 tuition fee. The Union maintains that for the College to revert to its strict rights under the :Collective Agreement .in september 1997, (if'the)r:hav¢' them), has dePrived the Union of the¢ibgP~:'.to bargain., · '" ';: '!'. ::Mr. Banasik submitted that the'B0ard ShoUld':.~d tile College :in vi01ation.'of,~de 9 4. allow the grievance. He. asked thc :Board to. remain:'seized Writh mspect'.~o remedy: ¥ .':..: i ~:~>-,-: :?':~: ::-..~: .~. i..,. <:i"" ' : The C611ege took the' p°~ition that the langUage:of~Aaidle: 9.4 is Clear'aiXd iI~at.tla* UniOn, taking.:? ' the Position it does, is'seeking to have the Coll°CtivCAgrecmcnt amended which is beyOnd thc .. · · jurisdiction of the Board. It was the submission of Mr. Brady that the union, in asking the Board" to give tuition fees the broad meaning of ~!1 fees to be paid by student, is in effect, writing the adjective tuition out of the article. Its purpose in the article is to ~sfinguish between all fees and tuition fees. This is, in Mr. Brady's view, a bargaining issue, not an arbitral one. Mr. Brady pointed out that both the tuition ~x form of the Customs and Revenue Agency and the provincial Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities make a distinction between tuition fees and non-tuition related incidental fees_ He cited 3 ministry regulations which make that distinction and establish that the guidekines d~fine what is not included under the heading of tuition fees. Mr. Brady submitted that a number of fees exist in the college system, and that the tuition fee is one of these. Article 9.4 is not, he maintained, an "all-fee provision" but is limited by the use of the word tuition; the incidental fees are left to Management. There is no evidence of any agreement as to the meaning of the term. To accept the Union's argument, he submitted, 8 would imply that Management could not react to change, whereas it has the exclusive ability to manage as it determines appropriate save for what is otherwise specifically restricted in the Collective Agreement. There is no agreement that Management will not exercise its rights, nor is there any legal principle which says that change must be "needfully" done. Further, he noted the College's position, that no distinction is to be made in this context between an employee student, and a non-employee student, whether part-time or full-time. Mr. Brady, drew the Board's attention to the fact that the Support Staff Collective Agreement is provincially bargained so that a rulingin:'favour of the Union would have an impact well~beyond ':"~:~!:':~ ~:S:fiult College. He also made th6~p°in{?~atifth~:~Union is taking the position that.~e ~e~ · ...... ' "iate'i' . ....,~,, tuition fee is ambiguous, the onus rests. ~th th© Elnion to. prove that there is a ~ nt!ammgmty :. 'in order for the extrinsic evidence, that is, the eVidence ofthe collective bargaining negotiations,, ~'~6:be tak6n into account. Mr. Brady gubmitted':~er, tha[Mr::Davis, the Gdev0r, ha.ving i~/~ ,'~ ?':, ~nrolied in .the coUrse of his Choice,'was'a~ ~dent; and?inthat: capacity: Was subject to; administrative charges for non-tuition related ineidentaEitems as:any°ther student. 'The elements of estoppel - a promise made by the College to the'Union, a statement by the " College intending to change the legal relationship between it and the Union, and detrimental reliance on the part of the Union- are not present. Mr. Brady queried how estoppel could ever be available over the issue of the bargaining of a provincial collective agreement by the conduct of college not at the table. Mr. Brady stated in respect of remedy that this is an individual grievance, not a policy grievance as distinguished in the Collective Agreement. Mr. Banasik takes the position that while the grievance was filed by an individual, Mr. Davis, that it was clear in the grievance that the settlement desired was a collective remedy. He directed the Board's attention to a memorandum from the Vice-President Human Resource & Student Services/Community Ventures & Contract Training, P. Gardiner, to Mr. Davis in which Ms. Gardiner wrote Our meeting of November 3, 1997 was scheduled at Step One. Given the policy nature of the grievance, it was considered appropriate that the grievance be heard by the Vice-President Human Resource & Student Services/Community Ventures & Contract Training rather that your immediate supervisor. I would suggest we consider this meeting and response to be a combined Step One and Two of the Grievance Procedure. In reply, Mr. Banasik stated that it was not appropriate to take a limited or statui°ry definition of a term laid out for limited purposes and to infer that the particular definition is applicable to the plain meaning of a word, as for example, the meaning assigned to tuition fees in the Income Tax Act. He went on to clarify the detrimental reliance in his estoppel argument and stated that he did not view it as the reliance of individual members:but, rather ~of the Union being deprived of the. opportunity of discussing the issue at the b~g~g.~table.:.' Mr, _Banasik conveyed to the :.~-......~,,: .',,:~ ?. ., .~.'. ,}. :.. B;ard that'~h~ was not asking the Board to modifyor' ~":amend: ~:~' :i ~:,~Article, 9.4 bUt..mther to interpret the 'meaning 0f~ Wo~d, of Which the parties have a different tmderSt~ding' and;that, he maintained: ..,':. :. : ' , : ,.' .i' ' the Board does have the jurisdiction to do. ' "':' ?. ":'~:~.. '; "~ ..... . '~-:: ; :.. ~: '::ii-.: ?:~(.. :.':' .?:'.' ..... ' . ' :.' :~:':'i. .' ' .' ' .... · BECISiON . The task given to the Board by the parties is to interpret Article 9.4 of their Collective Agreement: Tuition Fees An employee in the bargaining unit may take, for a tuition fee 0fnot more than twenty dollars ($20.00) per course, on the employee's own time: (a) Ministry approved programs or courses; or (b) other courses or programs as are mutually agreed, which the College currently offers. The employee must meet the College entrance and admission requirements and is subject to academic policies. , in particular the phrase "for a tuition fee of not more than twenty dollars ($20.00) per course". The Board finds that there is no ambiguity in the language of this phrase and therefore extrinsic evidence to shed further light on its meaning is not necessary. The Board recognizes that there has been imprecise use of terminology by the College and a perception, by some support staff members and the Union, that the total amount a student should have pay to take a course is twenty dollars ($20.00) and, where indicated, the cost of some personal supplies. However, it the language of the contract which we must follow. An analysis of the language gives the following result. The parties have agreed to the term tuition fee. The article has been given the heading Tuition Fee. The meaning of tuition fee is clarified when one considers what else might have been selected. The word tuition is defined in the New Webster dictionary as "the charge for instruction, esp. at a College or private school...teaching; instruction...". In the college system it is distinguishable from course fee which includes both the tuition fee and any non-tuition related fees. In the drafting of this article, the word tuition might have been omitted and then one would have been left with for a fee of not more than twenty dollars ($20.00). In that Case, the' total amount payable would have beenn°.mtre than twenty dollars ; ($20.00). However;. as:noted by Mr. Brady, one must give me~g..to eaeli!an&eVery word and the application Of the ·word tuition as an adjective in this sentence;'plaeeg~-h ~eSffietion on the scope of the noun it modifies, that is, on the word fee. The result 0f this:', i-~SffiCti°n :is that;:'. .:' histead of paying the regular:tuition fee (in the ease of Mr. Daws scourSe$1':7,5~00) · staff employee is required to' Pay only up to twer/tY!'d011ars ($20.00) of,thaf:'.feei-?' -:' · :::' ~.:.~ ~ The entitlement which Mr. Banasik referred to is nOt, 'in. the:opinion of this Board, an entitlement to enrol in a course for the total maximum amount of twenty dollars ($20:00), but ratheris an ': entitlement to be assessed no more than $20.00 for the tuition fee. Had the parties wished to broaden the scope to include all fees, they could have omitted the adjective tuition. It is also helpful to look at the placement of the phrase "not more than". This phrase in its current position "a tuition fee of not more than twenty dollars ($20.00)" means that it is the tuition fee which is restricted to twenty dollars ($20.00). The cap is on the tuition fee. However, had the phrase not more than been placed before tuition fee, the phrase would have read not more than a tuition fee of twenty dollars ($20.00), and the employee would have been able to enrol in a course for a total maximum amount of twenty dollars ($20.00). Once a support staff employee enrols in a course, he or she becomes first and foremost a student and is treated as any other student, with the exception of the reduced tuition fee. The College is within its management rights to levy other fees, provided they are not restricted elsewhere in the Collective Agreement or by statute or regulation. Therefore, its levy of the administrative fee of thirty cents per course hour (30¢) is within the scope of its management rights and its application of this fee to support staff employees enrolled as part-time students in courses at Sault College is not a violation of the Collective Agreement. Further, it is the opinion of the majority of this Board that this is not a case for the application of the doctrine of estoppel. Should the parties wish to limit the total amount payable by a support staff employee, they must, negotiate this at the bargaining table. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Board to amend the .? ~ ..~ ~.~;.... agreement which they signed. ·: '?. '}' , .For the above reasons, this grievance 'is dismisse& ' ' Finley, Chair ' David Guptill, College Nominee Dissents, dissent attached Sherril Murray, Union Nominee 12 Dissent Fact: The parties conducted business in the same fashion tbr five years. Support staff paid no more than $20.00 to take a course that conformed with certain criteria, plus the cost of materials used in'the course. Fact: The Government of Ontario partially deregulated "thcs" in the college system allowing the colleges to pass on more expenses to sO.~dents. Fact: The student council and the college agreed that part time students should pay more towards services. Fact: The college applies that agreement with'student council to staff : · ' members who also take courses. ' · ~'~'~::~"'~"~(: ~: :' :' :" . , · ..:!.;.:., . .~ :. :. i. ,:. . · i.,...i' . ::BUT: Due to what th~ tnnployeradvancos,~'a. decision is not applied to staff taking c°~'Ufitil n~g0tia/i~ns betWeen the , parties for the upcoming contract ~sconcludedoneTear'iater::' ~ · :'~ .. · ' ~i: '' ,',i.. . .. · ' agreeme is not ambiguous but allows pasi : lit · evidence, miniStry'guidelines etc., none of whiCh consistently deffii~ "tfiition to determ~e the meaning of tuition. Fact: The Board does not apply the roles ofeSt°ppel 'thereby allowing the' college to retain those extra fees despil~ the fact that: i) parts of these added fees amount to double dipping by the employer with regards to parking. 2) the employer knew they were about to charge more that $ 20.00 i¥om support staff per course and did not put the Union on notice to that effect until after the parties concluded negotiations. 3) the law firm retained by this college is the same law finn retained by the Ontario Council of Regents for the purposes of collective bargaining. Conclusion: Whether the clause is ambiguous or not, at the very least, the college should be estopped from charging more than the agreed $20.00 until the next round of bargaining. Actions by the government, the employer and student ootmcil improperly altered the terms of the collective agreement between the part/es.