Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 17-03-13IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: DURHAM COLLEGE - and - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 354 UNION GRIEVANCE JANE H. DEVLIN APPEARANCES FOR THE COLLEGE: WALLACE KENNY SANDRA BENNETT STEPHANIE BALL KEVIN BAKER APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION: ROBIN LOSTRACCO NICOLE ZWIERS DEBORAH TSAGRIS CHRIS HARRIS WILLIAM CHILTON SOLE ARBITRATOR The grievance, which was filed by the Union, alleges that the College has breached Article 8 and other relevant Articles of the collective agreement by failing to properly reduce work assignments by the number of teaching contact hours purchased by the Union for purposes of Union business. The dispute between the parties centres around the provisions of Article 8.04 B and Article 8.05 A of the collective agreement and these Articles are as follows: 8.04 B In recognition that resolution locally as referred to in Article 8.04 A may not be possible for a variety of reasons, the parties agree to the following basis for reduction in teaching or work assignments to facilitate assistance to employees and the Union Local in the administration of this Agreement and the business directly pertinent thereto: (i) In each College, there shall be a reduction of up to 30 teaching contact hours per week (as selected by the Union Local) that would otherwise have been assigned. For these hours, the Union Local shall reimburse the College for 25% of the base salary portion of the first 15 hours. The Union Local shall reimburse the College for 50% of the base salary portion of the next 15 hours. In the case of a Librarian or Counsellor, three hours of work or assignment shall be deemed equivalent to one teaching contact hour for the purpose of this Article only. For the purposes of the workload calculation, each teaching contact hour shall be credited as 2.17 workload hours to be recorded on the Standard Workload Form (SWF). (ii) In each College, there shall be a further reduction of up to 35 teaching contact hours per week (as selected by the Union Local) that would otherwise have been assigned. For these hours, the Union Local shall reimburse the College for 100% of the base salary portion. In the case of a Librarian or Counsellor, three hours of work or assignment shall be deemed equivalent to one teaching contact hour for the purpose of this Article only. For the purposes of workload calculation, each teaching contact hour shall be credited as 2.17 workload hours to be recorded on the SWF. 8.05 A The Union Local President shall advise the College President by June 1 of each year of the employee(s) to have a reduced teaching or work 2 assignment pursuant to the provisions of 8.04 and the College shall arrange the reductions effective for the academic year commencing September 1 subject to the availability of a suitable replacement or substitute for the employee(s) concerned and the efficient operation of the College. The Union also referred to Article 8.02, which provides as follows: 8.02 The regular salary, pension contributions, sick leave entitlements, group insurance benefits, and other fringe benefits of employees released from duty under 8.01 shall continue to be paid by the College. The Union shall reimburse the College for the regular salary portion, or in the case of attendance of Union appointees, at meetings with management appointees of the Joint Educational Qualifications Subcommittee, Joint Insurance Committee, CAAT Pension Plan Committees, Employee/Employer Relations Committee, Joint Grievance Scheduling Committee or such other Joint Union Management Committees as the Union and Council may subsequently agree in writing will be similarly treated for 50% of the regular salary portion. As well, the parties referred to certain provisions of Article 11, which deals with workload. These provisions are as follows: Article 11 WORKLOAD 11.01 A Each teacher shall have a workload that adheres to the provisions of this Article. 11.01 B 1 Total workload assigned and attributed by the College to a teacher shall not exceed 44 hours in any week for up to 36 weeks in which there are teaching contact hours for teachers in post -secondary programs and for up to 38 weeks in which there are teaching contact hours in the case of teachers not in post -secondary programs. The balance of the academic year shall be reserved for complementary functions and professional development. Workload factors to be considered are: (i) teaching contact hours (ii) attributed hours for preparation (iii) attributed hours for evaluation and feedback (iv) attributed hours for complementary functions 11.01 B 2 A "teaching contact hour" is a College scheduled teaching hour assigned to the teacher by the College. 11.01 E 4 The number of students in a course or section shall be determined initially by the College's planning estimates and recorded on the SWF as provided for in 11.02. The number of students in a course or section shall be reviewed after the enrolment audit dates and not later than the completion of the course or section or, at the request of the teacher, following the last day for withdrawal of registration by the student(s), and revised where appropriate. The number of students in a continuous intake program, course or section shall be reviewed every three months at the request of either the College or the teacher and determined as the weighted average of the number of students formally registered over the duration of the program, course or section. The weighted average shall be calculated by summing the number of formally registered students in each week of the program, course or section and then dividing the sum by the number of weeks in the duration of the program, course or section. 11.02 A 1(a) Prior to the establishment of a total workload for any teacher the supervisor shall discuss the proposed workload with the teacher and complete the SWF, attached as Appendix I, to be provided by the College. The supervisor shall give a copy to the teacher not later than six weeks prior to the beginning of the period covered by the timetable excluding holidays and vacations. It is recognized that if the SWF is subsequently revised by the College, it will not be done without prior consultation with the teacher. 11.02 A 1(b) The College may, where a change in circumstances requires it, amend assignments provided to a teacher after the original assignment, subject to the teacher's right to refer any matter to the College Workload Monitoring group (WMG) referred to in 11.02 B 1 and if necessary, the Workload Resolution Arbitrator (WRA) referred to in 11.02 E 1 and appointed under 11.02 F 1. 4 Article 11.01 D of the agreement sets out the formula for the attribution of weekly hours for preparation and Article 11.01 E sets out the formula for the attribution of weekly hours for evaluation and feedback. Complementary functions are dealt with in Article 11.01 F. I note that to the extent that I am required to consider and interpret the provisions of Article 11.01 and 11.02, the parties agreed on a without prejudice basis that I have jurisdiction to determine the grievance. It was not suggested that the matter ought to be dealt with by a Workload Resolution Arbitrator. The circumstances which gave rise to the grievance are as follows: On May 31, 2016, Nicole Zwiers, the President of the Local, sent a memo to Don Lovisa, the President of the College, setting out the teaching contact hours that the Union would be purchasing for members of its Executive and for Stewards. In the case of Deborah Tsagris, a Professor who was the newly elected Chief Steward, Professor Zwiers advised that the Union would be purchasing five hours per week. Prior to that time, Professor Tsagris had served as a Steward and, in that capacity, the Union had purchased one teaching contact hour per week. At the time of Professor Zwiers' memo, a standard workload form ("SWF") for Professor Tsagris for the period from September 7, 2016 to December 9, 2016 had already been prepared. This SWF indicated that Professor Tsagris was assigned to teach four courses, each of which involved three teaching contact hours per week and 5 the SWF also included attributed hours for preparation, evaluation and feedback and complementary functions. One teaching contact hour per week was marked on the SWF as "special prereq" to indicate that it involved Union time for a total of 13 teaching contact hours per week. Under the heading of complementary functions for the academic year, the SWF specified that on a weekly basis, 1.17 hours was attributable to Union time. In the result, the SWF provided for total workload of 43.870 hours per week. In view of the Union's request to purchase five teaching contact hours for Professor Tsagris, Stephanie Ball, the Executive Dean of the School of Justice & Emergency Services and the School of Interdisciplinary Studies advised Professor Tsagris that her workload would be reduced by one course. Ms. Ball also indicated that if Professor Tsagris was agreeable, a revised SWF would be prepared. Professor Tsagris indicated that as the Union had purchased five teaching contact hours per week, she thought that it might be necessary to reduce her workload by two courses. Ms. Ball responded by indicating that she had input the numbers and that it was still possible for Professor Tsagris to teach three courses. Ms. Ball also offered to meet with Professor Tsagris to discuss the matter further. With regard to the College's position that Professor Tsagris could teach three courses, the evidence indicates that on June 17th, the College prepared a revised SWF covering the period from September to December, 2016. This SWF indicated that Professor Tsagris was assigned to teach three courses, each of which involved three 2 teaching contact hours per week together with attributed hours for preparation, evaluation and feedback and complementary functions. The SWF also indicated that five teaching contact hours were attributable to Union time for a total of 14 teaching contact hours weekly. Under the heading of complementary functions for the academic year, the SWF specified that on a weekly basis, 5.85 hours involved Union time and the total workload was 44 hours per week. Ms. Lostracco, on behalf of the Union, advised that the SWF which was prepared on June 17th was not actually given to Professor Tsagris although she was told that her total workload would be 44 hours per week. On June 20th, the College prepared a further SWF for Professor Tsagris and this SWF reflected a reduction in class sizes to 50, rather than 60, which, in turn, affected attributed hours for evaluation and feedback. As with the SWF prepared on June 17th, the SWF prepared on June 201h indicated that Mr. Tsagris was assigned to teach three courses, each of which involved three teaching contact hours per week together with attributed hours for preparation, evaluation and feedback and complementary functions. The SWF also indicated that five teaching contact hours were attributable to Union time for a total of 14 teaching contact hours per week. Under the heading, complementary functions for the academic year, the SWF indicated that on a weekly basis, 5.85 hours involved Union time and the total workload was 41.750 hours per week. With regard to the calculation of Professor Tsagris' workload, Mr. Kenny submitted that Article 8.04 B of the collective agreement provides a credit of 2.17 workload hours for each teaching contact hour purchased by the Union and that the only limit on a teaching assignment is the maximum workload of 44 hours per week set out in 11.01 B 1. Mr. Kenny also advised that following the Union's memo of June 1, 2016, the College prepared revised SWFs for Professor Tsagris in the same manner that it had always prepared SWFs in circumstances where the Union purchased teaching contact hours under Article 8.04 of the collective agreement. Mr. Kenny noted that on the SWFs prepared on June 17 and 20`h, five teaching contact hours were attributable to Union time as well as an additional 5.85 hours for a total credit of 10.85 hours weekly. This credit was obtained by multiplying each hour purchased by the 2.17 workload hours referred to in Article 8.04 B. Thereafter, courses were assigned to the extent possible without exceeding the maximum workload of 44 hours per week. Mr. Kenny explained that on the revised SWFs, three courses were assigned because the addition of a fourth course would have exceeded the maximum workload. While Mr. Kenny also noted that on the SWF prepared on June 201h, Professor Tsagris' class sizes were reduced, he maintained it would not have been necessary to do so as the total workload was 44 hours per week. Ms. Lostracco advised that it was the Union's position that the College ought to have reduced the teaching contact hours on Professor Tsargis' original SWF by five to correspond with the number of hours purchased by the Union. Ms. Lostracco also indicated that it was only at the time of the events involving Professor Tsagris that the Union became aware of the manner in which the College was calculating teaching M contact hours purchased under Article 8.04 B. As a result, the present grievance was filed and Ms. Lostracco submitted that it was properly filed as a Union grievance. While Mr. Kenny maintained that the grievance concerned an individual Professor, on a without prejudice basis, he advised that the College was not objecting to my hearing the grievance. However, he reserved the right to make submissions regarding the scope of the grievance in the context of remedy in the event that I were to allow the grievance. As to the Union's knowledge of the College's practice, Ms. Lostracco referred to SWFs of other members of the Union Executive for whom teaching contact hours were purchased. In this regard, she noted that in certain cases, there was a reduction in the number of teaching contact hours that had previously been assigned which coincided with the number of hours purchased by the Union. With respect to the teaching contact hours that were purchased for Stewards, the evidence indicates that the Union typically purchased one teaching contract hour per week for each Steward. With respect to these hours, Ms. Lostracco advised that the parties reached an agreement that Stewards would not be scheduled between 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. on Mondays so that they could attend meetings of the Local. Ms. Lostracco maintained that this arrangement was intended to compensate for each teaching contact hour purchased. While Mr. Kenny acknowledged that the College acceded to the Union's request with regard to the scheduling of Stewards on Mondays, he disputed that this was intended to compensate for the teaching contact hours purchased by the Union. Instead, he submitted that 9 there was no reduction in teaching contact hours as each hour purchased could be accommodated without exceeding the maximum workload of 44 hours per week. Submissions It was the submission of Ms. Lostracco that in accordance with Article 8.05 A of the collective agreement, the Union is required to advise the College by June 1" of the employees who are to have a reduced teaching or work assignment for the academic year beginning September 1s`. Ms. Lostracco also noted that Article 8.04 B provides for a reduction in the weekly teaching contact hours selected by the Union "that would otherwise have been assigned". Accordingly, in the case of Professor Tsagris, Ms. Lostracco contended that the College ought to have reduced the teaching contact hours that appeared on her initial SWF by the number of teaching contact hours purchased by the Union in its memo of June 1st. Moreover, it was contended that the College's practice of adding hours to a SWF provided that the maximum workload of 44 hours per week was not exceeded renders the language of Article 8.05 A and 8.04 B meaningless. Ms. Lostracco also submitted that the language of the provisions in issue is clear and that there is no need to look beyond the terms of the agreement. In interpreting this language, Ms. Lostracco contended that the words used by the parties should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and that different words are presumed to have different meanings. In this regard, she noted that in the case of Librarians and 10 Counsellors, Article 8.04 B provides that three hours of work is deemed "equivalent to" one teaching contact hour. For purposes of the workload calculation, in contrast, the term "credited" has been used. Ms. Lostracco submitted, as well, that the provisions of Article 8 should be broadly construed as the Article is intended to provide time for Union business related to the administration of the collective agreement. Ms. Lostracco also submitted that Article 8.05 A refers to a reduced teaching assignment and that the terms "teaching" and "teaching contact hour" have clear meanings. These terms, it was contended, are related to instruction and the dissemination of content in assigned courses. Ms. Lostracco also submitted that the terms cannot be equated with workload hours and that to do so would effectively ignore the provisions of Article 8.04 B. Ms. Lostracco contended as well, that Article 11.02 A 1(b) provides that once a SWF has been issued, the College may only amend a teaching assignment where there is a change in circumstances. Ms. Lostracco further contended that Article 11.01 A distinguishes between assigned and attributed hours and that only teaching contact hours can be reduced as those hours are assigned by the College. Accordingly, Ms. Lostracco submitted that the College cannot revise ratios and attribution formulas related to preparation, evaluation and feedback and complementary functions as these ratios and formulas are bargained by the parties. 11 In the result, Ms. Lostracco contended that a genuine reduction in a teaching assignment requires a reduction in teaching contact hours to correspond with the number of hours purchased by the Union. She also submitted that for each hour purchased, Article 8.04 B provides that 2.17 workload hours are to be recorded on the SWF. Morever, it was submitted that as Article 8.04 B refers to a reduction in teaching contact hours as selected by the Union, the College cannot increase a Professor's hours. Ms. Lostracco also contended that reducing the size of Professor Tsagris' classes was inappropriate and artificial as class sizes, which are recorded on a SWF, are based on estimates and that a reduction in class sizes does not result in a reduction in work. Ms. Lostracco further submitted that even if one were to adopt the College's approach, there ought to have been a reduction of 10.85 workload hours from the hours that would otherwise have been assigned to Professor Tsagris and instead, there was a reduction of only 8.55 hours. As to the SWFs of other members of the Union Executive, Ms. Lostracco submitted that in most cases, the number of teaching contact hours on prior SWFs were reduced to correspond to the number of teaching contact hours purchased by the Union. While there were some exceptions, Ms. Lostracco contended that those exceptions indicated that there was no consistent practice on the part of the College in the manner in which it dealt with teaching contact hours purchased under Article 8.04 B. Ms. Lostracco also contended that as it was the College's position that it is only required to ensure that the maximum workload provided for in Article 11 was not exceeded, the Union was always paying for hours deducted from that maximum. It was contended, as 12 well, that Article 8.02, which deals with certain types of Union leave, makes no provision for a reduction in workload and, in this respect, can be contrasted with Article 8.04 B of the collective agreement. It was the submission of Mr. Kenny that the language of the collective agreement is clear but that in the event I were to find that it is ambiguous, 1 could consider evidence of the College's past practice as an aid to interpretation. In the further alternative, Mr. Kenny contended that evidence of past practice could be considered to support the application of the doctrine of estoppel. In the end, however, it was agreed that Mr. Kenny would reserve his right to make submissions on the issue of estoppel until such time as I rendered my award on the other issues raised by the parties. With regard to Article 8.04 B of the collective agreement, Mr. Kenny submitted that in that Article, the parties have agreed to a formula for teaching or work assignments in circumstances where the Union purchases teaching contact hours. In this regard, Mr. Kenny noted that in the case of Librarians and Counsellors who are assigned to work 35 hours per week, Article 8.04 B specifies that one teaching contact hour is equivalent to three hours of work. He also noted that for purposes of the workload calculation, the Article provides that each teaching contact hour shall be credited as 2.17 workload hours and recorded as such on the SWF. 13 Based on these provisions, Mr. Kenny submitted that where the Union purchases teaching contact hours for a Professor, a credit of 2.17 workload hours is provided for each hour purchased. Courses are then assigned to the extent possible, ensuring that the maximum workload of 44 hours per week provided for in Article 11.01 B 1 is not exceeded. In this regard, Mr. Kenny contended that there is nothing in Article 8 that alters the workload formula provided for in Article 11 or precludes an assignment of up to 44 hours per week. Mr. Kenny further submitted that if the parties had intended to prohibit such assignments, they would have said so expressly. He contended, as well, that in most cases, SWFs would not be issued at the point at which the Union purchases teaching contact hours and, in those circumstances, a deduction could only be made from the maximum workload. Mr. Kenny also submitted that the College has consistently calculated teaching contact hours purchased by the Union in the same manner and that it has done so with the knowledge of the Union. In each case, he contended that the number of courses assigned is limited by the maximum workload of 44 hours per week. " Moreover, as noted previously, Mr. Kenny submitted that there was no reduction in the teaching contact hours purchased by the Union for Stewards because 2.17 workload hours could be accommodated without exceeding the maximum workload. With respect to Professor Tsagris, Mr. Kenny submitted that as the Union purchased additional teaching contact hours after her SWF had been prepared in May, 2016, the College had a right to amend her assignment based on a change of 14 circumstances. Mr. Kenny also submitted that Article 8.04 B does not provide for a reduction in courses and that, on the Union's interpretation, it would have been necessary to eliminate an additional course. As each course involved three teaching contact hours, it was contended that this would have resulted in a deduction of six teaching contact hours. Mr. Kenny contended, as well, that the elimination of an additional course would have involved a reduction of 8.55 workload hours in circumstances where Professor Tsagris' revised SWF already reflected a reduction of 10.85 workload hours. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Union's interpretation would have resulted in a reduction of 19.40 workload hours on a weekly basis and a total workload of 33.25, rather than 41.75 hours per week. Each hour purchased would also have involved a credit of 3.88 workload hours whereas Article 8.04 B provides that each teaching contact hour purchased is to be credited as 2.17 workload hours. By way of reply, Ms. Lostracco submitted that Article 11.02 A 1(a) provides that a SWF is to be given to a Professor no later than six weeks prior to the period covered by the SWF, excluding holidays and vacations. Accordingly, Ms. Lostracco contended that SWFs for the fall semester would usually be prepared in May prior to the June 1s` date on which the Union is to notify the College of employees who are to have reduced teaching or work assignments. Ms. Lostracco also submitted that in the past, the College has -not consistently assigned Professors up to a maximum of 44 hours per week without any reduction in workload to account for the teaching contact hours purchased by the Union. However, in the case of Professor Tsagris, Ms. is Lostracco noted that the revised SWF prepared by the College on June 17`h increased her workload to 44 hours per week. Decision As noted at the outset, the dispute between the parties centres around the provisions of Articles 8.04 B and 8.05 A which deal with the purchase of teaching contact hours by the Union. In this regard, Article 8.05 A provides that the Local Union President shall advise the College President by June 15' of each year of the employee(s) who are to have a reduced teaching or work assignment pursuant to the provisions of Article 8.04. The College is then to arrange the reductions for the academic year beginning September 1", subject to the availability of a suitable replacement or substitute for the employee(s) concerned and the efficient operation of the College. Article 8.04 B refers to the basis agreed to by the parties for reducing teaching or work assignments to facilitate assistance to employees and the Union in the administration of the collective agreement and business directly related thereto. Article 8.04 B(i) then provides that in each College, there shall be a reduction of up to 30 teaching contact hours per week (as selected by the Union) that would otherwise have been assigned. The Article further provides that for those hours, the Union shall reimburse the College for 25% of the base salary portion for the first 15 hours and for 50% of the base salary for the next 15 hours. The Article specifies that in the case of a 16 Librarian or Counsellor, three hours of work or assignment shall be deemed equivalent to one teaching contact hour for purposes of Article 8.04 B only. For purposes of the workload calculation, the Article specifies that each teaching contact hour shall be credited as 2.17 workload hours and recorded as such on the SWF. Article 8.04 B(ii) is similar to Article 8.04 B(i) except that Article 8.04 B(ii) requires the Union to reimburse the College for 100% of the base salary portion where there is a further reduction of up to 35 teaching contact hours per week. It was the position of the Union and the initial position of the College that the language of Articles 8.04 B and 8.05 A is clear and having carefully considered these provisions, I am not satisfied that the language is ambiguous. However, even if there were some ambiguity in the language, I find that in this case, it would not be appropriate to consider evidence of the College's past practice as an aid to interpretation. With respect to that practice, I understand that when teaching contact hours have been purchased by the Union, the College has multiplied the number of hours purchased by 2.17 workload hours and a credit has been provided for the total number of hours. Courses have then been assigned to the extent possible, ensuring in each case that the maximum workload of 44 hours per week provided for in Article 11.01 B 1 has not been exceeded. In the case of Union Stewards, for whom the Union has typically purchased one teaching contact hour per week, the College advised that there was no need to adjust teaching assignments because the hour could be accommodated without exceeding the maximum workload. 17 Dealing firstly with the hours purchased for Stewards, there was no dispute that an agreement was reached between the parties that Stewards would not be scheduled from 12:00 noon to 2:00 p.m. on Mondays so that they could attend meetings of the Local. According to the Union, this arrangement was intended to compensate for each teaching contact hour purchased under Article 8.04 B. While the College disputed this latter claim, in my view, it is not clear that there was a common understanding between the parties regarding the manner in which teaching contact hours purchased for Stewards would be dealt with. As to other cases in which the Union purchased teaching contact hours, the College outlined the manner in which assignments were made and I accept the College's submission that its practice was consistent in that regard. Nevertheless, in my view, it is not evident from simply reviewing the SWFs that were introduced in evidence precisely how the College calculated the teaching contact hours purchased and how assignments were made. I note that in some cases, there was a reduction in the number of teaching contact hours previously assigned which corresponded to the number of hours purchased. In other cases, there was not. In the result, I am not persuaded that the Union knew or ought to have known of the College's practice prior to the situation involving Professor Tsagris. In these circumstances, therefore, I find that even if the language of Article 8.04 B were regarded as ambiguous, it would not be appropriate to consider evidence of the College's past practice as an aid to interpretation. W Turning then to the provisions of Article 8, Article 8.05 A refers to the Union advising the College of employees who are to have a "reduced teaching or work assignment" pursuant to Article 8.04. The introductory paragraph of Article 8.04 B also refers to the basis agreed to by the parties for a "reduction in teaching or work assignments". Article 8.04 B(i) and (ii) then refers to a reduction of up to a specified number of teaching contact hours per week as selected by the Union Local "that would otherwise have been assigned". It is significant, in my view, that Article 8.04 B does not refer to a reduction in the hours that "could" have been assigned, nor does it refer to a reduction in relation to the maximum workload of 44 hours per week. Moreover, I note that on the College's interpretation, teaching contact hours are adjusted only to the extent necessary to ensure that the maximum workload is not exceeded. As the Union noted, in some cases, SWFs may already have been issued for the fall semester by June 15i when the Union is required to notify the College of the employees who are to have a reduced teaching or work assignment pursuant to Article 8.04. In this regard, Article 11.02 A 1(a) provides, among other matters, that a SWF is to be given to a Professor no later than six weeks prior to the beginning of the period covered by the timetable, excluding holidays and vacations. Accordingly, a SWF had already been prepared for Professor Tsagris for the fall semester in 2016 at the point at which the Union advised the College that it would be purchasing five teaching contact hours. Professor Tsagris' original SWF included one hour of Union time as she had 19 served as a Steward prior to her appointment as Chief Steward. In the result, I find that, in Professor Tsagris' case, her initial SWF, which was prepared in May, set out the weekly teaching contact hours "that would otherwise have been assigned" for the fall semester. At the same time, as the College noted, there will be many cases in which SWFs will not have been issued for periods in respect of which the Union purchases teaching contact hours. Although the College submitted that, in those circumstances, a deduction can only be made from the maximum workload of 44 hours per week, I cannot accept that submission. Article 8.04 B contemplates a reduction in teaching contact hours per week "that would otherwise have been assigned". In my view, this phrase must be given meaning and had the parties intended the only limit to be the maximum workload set out in Article 11, presumably they would have said so. In circumstances where a SWF has not been prepared for a period in respect of which the Union purchases teaching contact hours, it may be that a Professor's SWF for the prior semester will be reflective of the hours that would otherwise have been assigned. In other cases, it may be necessary to consider a number of SWFs over a representative period of time. However, I cannot accept the Union's submission that Article 8.04 B requires the College to reduce the number of teaching contact hours on a Professor's SWF to coincide with the number of teaching contact hours purchased by the Union. OQ The teaching contact hours that appear on a SWF are associated with attributed hours for other functions that form part of total workload based on formulas set out in Article 11 of the collective agreement. In Article 8.04 B, the parties have agreed on a formula that applies to teaching contact hours purchased by the Union pursuant to that Article. In this regard, the Article specifies that in the case of a Librarian or Counsellor, one teaching contact hour is deemed equivalent to three hours of work or assignment. Accordingly, for each hour purchased, there is a deduction of three hours from the scheduled hours of Librarians and Counsellors. In the case of Professors, Article 8.04 B specifies that each teaching contact hour is credited as 2.17 workload hours. Accordingly, it is those hours for which the Union is entitled to credit when it purchases teaching contact hours under Article 8.04 B. In the result, I find that the College has properly calculated the credit for each weekly teaching contact hour purchased by the Union based on 2.17 workload hours. However, by making an assignment up to the maximum workload of 44 hours per week, I find that the College has not provided a reduction in teaching contact hours selected by the Union that would otherwise have been assigned. In this respect, therefore, the grievance is allowed and I remit the matter to the parties. I shall remain 21 seized to deal with the issue of remedy and any other matters which properly arise in connection with the grievance. DATED AT TORONTO, this 1,3 day of March, 2017. JDP, k 1L— Sole Arbitrator