Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHill 08-06-03 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (the "Union") - AND - ST. CLAIR COLLEGE (the "College") AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF LINDA HILL OPSEU #2007-0138-0001 (713801) - ACADEMIC BOARD OF ARBITRATION Robert D. Hower Chair Ron Davidsonr Union Nominee John podmorer College Nominee APPEARANCES For the Union Kirsten Agrellr Grievance Officer Linda Hill Bernie Nawrocki Barbara Graham For the College Barry Brownr Counsel Sandi Webster Peter Tumidajski A hearing in the above matter was held in Windsor, Ontario, on April 9r 2008r followed by written reply submissions received on April 18r 2008. A WAR D The matter to be decided in this award is whether the College violated Article 8.01 of the parties' collective agreement by declining to release the grievorr Linda Hillr from duty to attend the 2007 OPSEU Convention as an alternate delegate. Article 8 providesr in partr as follows: Article 8 UNION BUSINESS 8.01 It is agreed that up to a maximum of five persons per College be released from duty for sufficient time to engage in Arbitration Board hearings or Provincial Union Committee Meetings for members thereof or Union conventions for elected delegates thereto (which may include seminars or conferences which will be considered by the College concerned on their individual merit(s)) r provided such releaser which will not be unreasonably withheldr does not in the opinion of the College President interfere with the efficient operation of the College. 8.02 The regular salarYr pension contributionsr sick leave entitlementsr group insurance benefitsr 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 portionr or in the case of attendance of Union appointeesr at meetings with management appointees of the Joint Educational Qualifications Subcommitteer Joint Relations Committeer 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. Under Article 13.4 of the OPSEU Constitutionr the number of delegates which a local is entitled to send to conventions is determined by the size of the local: 13.4 Delegate entitlement to Conventions shall be as follows: 1 (a) Locals Up to 150 Members 151 to 300 Members 301 to 500 Members 501 to 800 Members 801 to 1100 Members 1101 to 1500 Members 1501 to 1900 Members 1901 to 2300 Members 2301 or more Members 1 delegate 2 delegates 3 delegates 4 delegates 5 delegates 6 delegates 7 delegates 8 delegates 9 delegates Since Local 138 (which is the OPSEU academic Local at St. Clair College) had between 301 and 500 members in 2007r it was entitled under that provision to send three delegates to the Convention. (The Local's entitlement was reduced to two delegates in 2008r because its membership decreased.) The Constitution also makes provision for alternate delegates: 13.5.1 All delegates and alternates from Locals shall be elected at a general membership meeting on the principle of winning a clear majoritYr with run-off ballots if necessarYr except that the Local President shall be the first delegate automatically. 13.5.2 A Local may elect alternate delegates up to the number of delegates to which it is entitled. Alternates may not be seated on the floor of the Convention unless in possession of badges of absent delegates of the same Locals. All Convention expenses of alternate delegates shall be borne by the Local. As indicated by the latter provisionr the main distinction between the two categories is that delegates (who will also be referred to in this award as "primary delegates"r for ease of reference) are entitled to be seated on the floor and thus to vote on matters at the conventionr while alternates cannot do so except when they are replacing primary delegates. OPSEU has a separate form for each of those 2 categories (and a third form for observers) . The difference between the "DELEGATE CREDENTIAL" form and the "ALTERNATE CREDENTIAL" form is that only the former contains a section pertaining to "TIME OFF". To complete that sectionr the delegate must indicate "WHICH DATES?" (by checking off the required dates) r which bargaining unit (by checking off "OPS"r "CAAT"r "BPS"r or "LBED") r the Employer's name and addressr and the namer telephone numberr and fax number of the Human Resources Director. The following information was provided to Sandi Websterr the College's Human Resources Directorr by OPSEU President Leah Casselman in a letter dated March 16r 2007: This letter will serve as official notification of our Annual Conventionr being held April 19r 20r and 21r 2007. The person(s) on the attached list has/have been elected as an official delegate to attend this meeting and will require time off as indicated. Time off is being requested in accordance with the applicable Article in the Collective Agreement. Your assistance in arranging the necessary leave of absence from dutYr as per the collective agreement would be greatly appreciated. Please invoice the OPSEU Accounting Department for wage reimbursement. When these arrangements have been mader please confirm them with the employee concerned. Reasonable travelling time should be considered for a delegate attending from out of town and special allowances may be required for shift work employees. We will be sending updated listings on a regular basis and will notify your office if there is a change for any delegate that will affect the time off request. [The letter also indicated who to contact if further information was required.] Two lists were attached to that letterr one pertaining to Local 138 and the other pertaining to Local 137 (which is the 3 OPSEU support Local at the College). The names on those lists are confined to primary delegatesr and do not include any alternates. The first witness called by the Union to testify in these proceedings was the grievorr Linda Hillr who is a faculty member in the College's early childhood education department. After completing the appropriate formr she attended the 2006 convention as an alternate delegate with the permission of Wendy Asherr the Chair of her departmentr who instructed her to arrange for her classes to be covered. She did so by doing a "swap" with another faculty member who taught the same group of students. While at the conventionr she listened to the proceedings and took notes. As an alternate delegater she could also have spoken at the microphone if she had wished to do so. When a primary delegate from Local 138 signalled (by hand gestures) an intention to leave the convention floorr the grievor would meet the delegate outside the convention hall and exchange badges so that the grievor could take the primary delegate's place on the convention floor and take part in any voting which occurred while she was replacing the primary delegate. The grievor testified that this could also be done formally by going to the credentials desk if the delegate left without giving his or her badge to an alternate. The grievor's convention expenses were paid by the Local. There were no lost wages because her work was covered by the aforementioned swap. 4 The grievor was also elected as an alternate delegate in 2007. Howeverr when she spoke with her department chair after filling out the appropriate formr Ms. Asher advised her that the College had made a decision to only allow delegates to attend. The grievor subsequently sent the following e-mail to Peter Tumidajskir the College's Academic Vice-President (to whom the College presidentr John Strasserr had delegated responsibility and authority to make the decision on whether alternate delegates would be permitted to attend the convention) : Hello Peterr I submitted a request to attend the OPSEU Convention April 19th - 22nd in Toronto. I understand the request was denied. I thought I'd explain...... The general membership elected me as an alternate - I go in the event that one of the delegates has to leave the room (biology breaks etc). The convention is quite long and delegates often need a break. Colleges can send up to 5 persons (article 8.01) - we are sending only 4 - Bernier Barbr Bob Martiniuk and myself. OPSEU reimburses the College for the time that I am missing. I'm not sure if Wendy told you but I have offered to reschedule my classes so that I do not miss any contact time. I would meet with them on Monday the 23rd. So....... . that should satisfy any concerns about "interfering with the efficient operation of the College" . If there is a problem with rescheduling my classes - I have someone willing to teach those classes on Friday. I am not missing classes on Thursday and will take my marking bag along with me - it is attached to my hip most days anyway. Let me Know. Thanks. Linda 5 Dr. Tumidajski responded as followsr through an e-mail dated April 5r 2007: Here is my thought process (in no particular order) . 1. The end of April is a really critical time in the academic year. Its [sic] important to try to minimize changes for the students. 2. Changing schedules is problematic. Students have commitmentsr rooms can be difficult to find at particular times. 3. I believe the college is obligated to send official delegates. The alternate would only go to the convention if one of the delegates is sick and could not attend the convention. I don't think that the concept of alternate delegate is to provide bio-break relief at the convention. Besidesr I would think that the official delegates should be able to organize themselves to cover off one another for any bio-breaks. 4. If you arrange for someone to teach your classes on Friday - would that person be paid? If not then that person would be doing work for no pay. Isn't that problematic. Andr what would happen on the SWF for that person for that week? There are lots of implications here. The College is being very accommodating in releasing the official delegates to attend the convention. The problem lies in the convention date. OPSEU should consider having these meeting outside the bulk times of the academic year. If the meeting were in Mayor June - I wouldn't foresee such a problem. I am always open to more discussion. Take carer Peter T. As a result of the College's decision to only release primary delegatesr the grievor was unable to attend the convention on Thursday April 19th or Friday April 20th. Howeverr she did attend the weekend portion of the conventionr during which she had opportunity to sit on the convention floor and participate in some voting. The Union's second witness was Barb Grahamr who is a 6 faculty member in the College's liberal arts and sciences department. She attended the OPSEU conventions in 2005 and 2006 as an alternate delegater with the permission of Gail Daler who was the Chair of her department. During the 2005 conventionr she filled in as a primary delegate for approximately two hours per day. Since one of the Local's primary delegates had to leave the convention in 2006r Ms. Graham took that delegate's badge and filled in as a primary delegate for the entire convention. She attended the OPSEU convention in 2007 as a primary delegater with the permission of Tina DiSimoner the new Chair of her department. She followed the same process in each of those three years to obtain permission from the Chair of her department to attend the convention. Her expenses were paid by the Local when she attended as an alternate delegater and by OPSEU when she attended as a primary delegate. Ms. Graham has been a union steward Slnce 2003. She testified that she never had to deal with an issue of alternate delegates being denied permission to attend a convention until 2007. In describing the impact of not having alternate delegates in attendance on Thursday and Friday at the 2007 conventionr Ms. Graham testified that there were several hours during which the Local did not have three delegates on the floor because one of its delegates could not be there. The final witness called by the Union was Bernie Nawrockir who has been a faculty member in the College's 7 mechanical engineering department since 1982. He has been a union steward for over ten years and is currently the Local Presidentr having previously been its Vice-President for a number of years. With the permission of Bill Stammlerr the Chair of his departmentr he attended the OPSEU convention in 2004 as a primary delegater after arranging for another faculty member to cover his scheduled classes. In 2005r he was elected as an alternate delegate and followed the same process with Omers Hageniersr who had become the Chair of his department. He did not go to the convention in 2006. In 2007r as the President of Local 138 he was automatically the Local's first delegate (under Article 13.5.1 of the OPSEU Constitution). To obtain permission to attendr he notified Adel Esayedr who was the new Chair of his departmentr and also notified Ms. Websterr the College's aforementioned Human Resources Directorr that he was going to be away. On April 5r 2007r Mr. Nawrocki e-mailed the following information to Dr. Tumidajski: Elected 138 Delegates to convention are: Bernie Nawrocki Barb Graham Paul Ramey Elected Alternates are: Bob Martyniuk Linda Hill Purpose of alternates: To fill in for Delegates (especially during critical vote periods when Delegates may be away) When he was asked (during the course of examination in chief) if during his time as a steward he was ever made 8 aware of any issue regarding an alternate delegate being denied permission to attend a conventionr he replied in the negative but went on to note that an issue of that type would normally be dealt with at the OPSEU level and would not normally be dealt with by a union steward. Since the College called no witnessesr the matter proceeded to argument after the conclusion of Mr. Nawrocki's testimony. Summary of Union Counsel's Submissions The Union's first position is that the language of Article 8.01 is clearr and that the term "delegates" is inclusive of both primary delegates and alternate delegates. The collective agreement draws no distinction between "delegates" and "alternate delegates". That distinction is drawn by the Union constitutionr which is an internal Union document prepared for a very different purpose than the language of the collective agreement. As between the College and the Unionr the differences in their responsibilities while at the convention are not relevant. Since Local 138 is entitled to have three voting delegates on the floor of the conventionr having alternate delegates present at the convention to step into that role when a primary delegate lS absent from the floor is an important part of the Union's ability to function. Limiting the scope of the word "delegate" in Article 8.01 to exclude alternate delegates makes no labour relations senser and interferes with the Local's interest in ensuring that it gets its share of the 9 vote at conventions. The fact that the Union is responsible for the convention expenses of primary delegates while the Local bears that responsibility for alternate delegates does not mean that alternate delegates are not "elected delegates" within the meaning of Article 8.01. This is a matter of internal Union practicer and is not something which the College can legitimately rely on in the interpretation of the language of the collective agreement. AlternativelYr if the term "delegate" is ambiguous in the context of Article 8.01r that ambiguity is resolved by the past practice of treating that term as including alternate delegates. There is a longstanding practice of primary delegates and alternate delegates following the same procedure for securing release from their duties to attend Union conventions. The evidence in that regard covers three different departments and five different chairs of those departments. The evidence indicates that 2007 was the first time that this narrow interpretation of "delegate" was raised as a bar to alternate delegates' attendance at a convention. The interpretation of "delegates" that makes sense from a labour relations point of view is that alternate delegates are a subset of delegates. Under the College's interpretationr many locals including Local 138 would never reach the maximum of five delegates for which Article 8.01 provides. In the further alternativer if the clear meaning of "delegates" in Article 8.01 supports the position advanced by the Colleger the College is estopped from adopting that 10 interpretation by virtue of its aforementioned practice of treating primary delegates and alternate delegates in the same way. That course of conduct amounts to a representation which has led the Union to conclude that the College is not relying on an interpretation of Article 8.01 that precludes the attendance of alternate delegates at Union conventions. The Union has relied upon that representation to its detriment by losing the opportunity to bargain a revision or clarification of the language. The cases relied upon by the College are distinguishable from the present case. The following cases were referred to by Union counsel in support of her submissions: Re Spar Aerospace Ltd. and C.A.W., Local 112 (1996) r 43 C.L.A.S. 387 (Gorsky) i Re Treasury Board (Agriculture Canada and Lewis (1990) r 21 C.L.A.S. 33 (Young) i and Re Treasury Board (Health and Welfare Canada) and Babcock (1989) r 13 C.L.A.S. 62 (Young). Summary of College Counsel's Submissions The plain language of Article 8.01 does not include alternate delegates. It refers only to "elected delegates"r and does not refer to "alternate delegates" at all. The evidence indicates that the parties' use of the phrase "elected delegates" does not include "alternate delegates"r and there is no reason to give that phrase a different meaning in the collective agreement. The list of official delegates sent by the President of OPSEU to the College's Human Resources Director includes only primary delegates and does not include alternates. The Union's credential forms also 11 differentiate between "delegates" and "alternates". The significant difference between the delegate credential form and the alternate credential form is that only the former speaks to the question of "time off"r and requires the delegate to specify on which dates time off will be required. OPSEU only reimburses the salary for delegates; it does not reimburse the salary for alternate delegates. Article 8.01 allows for a particular class of people to be released from duty for sufficient time to attend Union conventionsr namely "elected delegates thereto". Article 8.02 provides for salary reimbursement for that same class of people. That class of people does not include alternate delegates. Delegates and alternates are elected in separate elections held on different days. They perform different duties at the convention. An alternate cannot even be seated on the floor of the convention unless in possession of an absent delegate's badge. Delegates and alternates are distinct categories under the Union Constitutionr which is a unilateral document that speaks to the Union's intent. We do not get to past practice in the circumstances of this case as there is a clear preponderance in favour of the College's interpretation of "elected delegates". All of the other extrinsic evidence points to a distinction between "elected delegates" and "alternates". The past practice which the Union relies upon cannot carry the weight the Union seeks to load upon it. It is confined to three departments covering a span of only two years. 12 No estoppel can be found in the circumstances of this case as there is no evidence of detrimental reliance by the Union. That essential element cannot be inferred. Moreoverr the limited "past practice" evidence falls far short of establishing a representation by conduct. During the course of his submissionsr College counsel referred to Re Int'l Ass'n of Machinistsr Local 1740 and John Bertram & Sons Co. Ltd. (1967) r 18 L.A.C. 363 (Weiler); Brown and BeattYr Canadian Labour Arbitrationr paragraph 2:2200; Ontario Nurses Association and Bluewater Healthr unreported award dated May 17r 2004 (Brandt); Re School District No. 38 (Richmond) and C. U.P.E., Loc. 716 (2002) r 108 L.A.C. (4th) 429 (Sullivan); and Re Canadian Pacific Hotels and B.B.F., Loc. D331 (1994) r 46 L.A.C. (4th) 81 (Moreau) Decision Having duly considered all of the evidence and the submissions of the partiesr we have concluded that the phrase "elected delegates" in Article 8.01 encompasses only "delegates" and does not include "alternates". If the parties had intended that provision to apply not only to "delegates" but also "alternates"r they would have included both terms (so that the material portion of the provision would read: "or Union conventions for elected delegates and alternates thereto") . The wording of Article 8.02 also confirms the parties' intent in that regard. It provides that the College shall continue to pay the "regular salarYr pension 13 contributionsr sick leave entitlementr group insurance benefitsr and other fringe benefits of employees released from duty under 8.01". It further provides that the "Union shall reimburse the College for the regular salary portion" of that payment (or 50% thereof in certain circumstances which are not germane to this case). It is clear from the totality of the evidence that OPSEU only reimburses the College for the "regular salary portion" of delegatesr and does not do so ln respect of alternates. If the parties had intended the phrase "elected delegates" to include alternatesr they would likely have included a reference to the "Union Local" in Article 8.02 (as they didr for exampler in Article 8.04A) r so that it would provide that the "Union or the Union Local shall reimburse the College for the regular salary portion...." The interpretation of the term "delegate" advocated on behalf of the Union in these proceedings does not accord with the manner in which that term is used in Union-generated documents which form a significant part of the extrinsic evidence in this case. As indicated abover President Casselman's letter of March 16r 2007 to Ms. Webster came with attached lists naming the "person(s) ... elected as an official delegate to attend [the Annual Convention] "r who "will require time off as indicated ... in accordance with the applicable Article of the Collective Agreement". Those lists are confined to primary delegatesr and do not include alternates. The Union's aforementioned credential forms also differentiate between "delegates" and "alternates"r with the 14 significant difference between the "delegate credential" form and the "alternate credential" form being that only the former speaks to the question of "time off"r which obviously refers to the "release from duty" for which Article 8.01 provides. Delegates and alternates are also distinct categories under the Union Constitutionr which expressly provides for the election of "delegates" and "alternates"r and which precludes the latter from being seated on the floor of the Convention unless in possession of badges of absent "delegates" of the same Locals. Those documents provide a clear indication that in the context of Union-generated documents pertaining to the attendance of "delegates" at Union conventionsr that term is generally used to encompass only primary delegates and not alternates. We are not persuaded that the term should be given a more expansive meaning in the context of Article 8 of the collective agreement. (Re Treasury Board (Agriculture Canada and Lewis, suprar and Re Treasury Board (Health and Welfare Canada) and Babcockr suprar were both decided in a different labour relations context involving different contractual language (pertaining to "leave without pay") and different factual circumstancesr and are not of assistance in deciding the instant case.) As indicated by Arbitrator Weiler in Re Int'l Ass'n of Machinistsr Local 1740 and John Bertram & Sons Co. Ltd., supra (at page 366) r "past practice" may be utilized by an arbitrator as an aid to clarifying a collective agreement provision which is ambiguous in its requirements when applied 15 to a labour relations problem. Howeverr as further indicated in that award (at page 367) r to avoid unduly rigidifying labour relationsr the following limitations should be placed on the use of past practice for this purpose: there should be (1) no clear preponderance in favour of one meaningr stemming from the words and structure of the agreement as seen in their labour relations context; (2) conduct by one party which unambiguously is based on one meaning attributed to the relevant provision; (3) acquiescence in the conduct which is either quite clearly expressed or which can be inferred from the continuance of the practice for a long period without objection; (4) evidence that some members of the union or management hierarchy who have some real responsibility for the meaning of the agreement have acquiesced in the practice. In the present caser there is a clear preponderance in favour of the interpretation advanced by the Colleger stemming from the words and structure of the agreement as seen in their labour relations contextr which includes the aforementioned interrelationship between Article 8.01 and Article 8.02 of the collective agreementr the aforementioned list of elected delegates supplied to the College by the OPSEU Presidentr the aforementioned credential formsr and the distinction between "delegates" and "alternates" under the Union Constitution. The "past practice" relied upon by the Union is confined to a period of only two years (2005 and 2006) and involves only three of the departments in the College. (Ms. Graham's testimony that she had been a union steward since 2003 and had never dealt with an issue of alternate delegates being denied permission to attend a convention until 2007 does not prove that alternate delegates were given time off to attend conventions prior to 2005. The 16 same is true of Ms. Nawrocki's testimony concerning his experience as a steward.) There remains the issue of whether in the circumstances of this case the College is estopped by that "past practice" from relying upon the aforementioned interpretation of "elected delegates". As indicated in paragraph 2:2200 of Brown and BeattYr Canadian Labour Arbitration (at page 2-68) r "the essential elements of estoppel are: a clear and unequivocal representationr particularly where the representation occurs in the context of bargaining; which may be made by words or conduct; or in some circumstances it may result from silence or acquiescence; intended to be relied on by the party to whom it was directed; although that intention may be inferred from what reasonably should have been understood; some reliance in the form of some action or inaction; and detriment resulting therefrom. " Re Spar Aerospace Ltd. and C.A,W'r Local 112r suprar is an example of the principle of estoppel being applied in the context of an application for a union leave of absence. In that caser one of the bases upon which the employer sought to justify its decision to deny the requested leave was that the application was made by the plant chairpersonr rather than by a representative of the national union or by the senior officer of the localr as required by the collective agreement. In finding the employer to be estopped from raising that argumentr Arbitrator Gorsky wrote as follows (at page 19) 17 [114] Neverthelessr the evidence indicates that for some period of time preceding the effective date of the current collective agreementr and thereafterr the Employer did not object to applications under Article 29.03 being made by the Plant Chairperson. There were 91 examples in Exhibit 11 of such applications being filed without any indication of an objection based on the application coming from someone other than a representative of the National Union or by President of Local 112r who is the senior officer of the Local. There were also examples of the same practice being followed during the currency of the collective agreement before me. It is evident that on the basis of the Employer's representationr the matter was not raised prior to the current collective agreement being entered into andr to that extentr the Union was deprived of an opportunity to raise the matter during negotiations. In the circumstancesr I find that the Employer would be estopped from now raising an argument based on the fact that the application in question was not made either by an appropriate representative of the National Union or the President of Local 112. A longstanding practice of providing employees with a particular benefit (such as leaves of absence to attend union conventions) in the absence of any legal obligation to do so can give rise to an estoppel by conduct. Howeverr the evidence in this case falls far short of establishing such a practice with respect to alternate delegates. As indicated abover the practice relied upon by the Union is confined to a period of only two years (2005 and 2006) and involves only three of the College's departments. Those relatively limited circumstances cannot reasonably be construed as constituting a representation intended to affect the legal relations of the parties. Moreoverr as submitted by counsel for the Colleger there is no evidence of detrimental reliance by the Union. In this regardr the following passage from page 12 of Arbitrator Brandt's award in Ontario Nurses Association and Bluewater Health, suprar lS instructive regarding the need for evidence 18 of detrimental reliance: FirstlYr as an evidentiary matterr there is no evidence before me that the union relied to its detriment on the employer continuing with its practice; that it lost the opportunity to bargain this issue at the last round of negotiations. While it may be logical to assume thatr had the union been aware that the practice would changer it would have sought to resist that in bargaining or perhaps attempt to obtain something else in exchanger it would be dangerous to decide the estoppel claim on the basis of such assumed facts. For the foregoing reasonsr we have concluded that the College did not violate Article 8.01 of the collective agreement by declining to release the grievor from duty to attend the 2007 OPSEU Convention as an alternate delegate. AccordinglYr the grievance is hereby dismissed. DATED at Burlingtonr Ontarior this 3rd day of Juner 2008. ~~cd-~ Robert D. Howe Chair I concur. "John Podmore" College Nominee 19 Dissent I respectfully must dissent from this Award. Delegates and Alternate Delegates are elected from the Ontario Public Service, the Broader Public Service, the Liquor Board Division and the Academic and Support staff of our Community Colleges to attend the OPSEU Convention, that is held each year for three days in the month of April. This is a practice that has existed for many years. At this Convention, Local Officers and rank and file members get the opportunity to discuss and formulate the Union's policies, approve or amend the financial budget for the current year, review expenditures for the previous year and in every other year, elect the Union's President and First Vice President and Treasurer. In other words, participation in the Convention, represents the most important function allotted to Local Officers. They are the Union's watchdog and this democratic forum, ensures not only that their voices are heard, but are also acted upon. The success of the Convention, is also dependent on the availability of alternate delegates, who must be ready to replace, temporarily or permanently, an elected delegate, so that the Local can be assured at all times, to have their full voting numbers in attendance and counted. The College President delegated the authority to the Academic Vice President to decide whether the grievor ( an elected alternate delegate) could attend the 2007 Convention. Article 8.01 currently has two restrictions that may be considered by the Employer, if elected delegates are to be given permission to attend Conventions. Firstly, there is a maximum of 5 persons per College and secondly, that in their opinion, it does not interfere with the efficient operation of the College. The Academic Vice President's decision to deny release for alternate delegates adds a third restriction, in that he suggests " the alternate delegate would only go to the Convention if one of the delegates is sick and could not attend the Convention" (Page 6 of the Award). He further suggests "that the official delegates should be able to organize themselves to cover off one another for any bio-breaks". He does not explain, how that arrangement would maintain a Local's full voting strength during the delegates absence from the floor. He goes on to suggest, that the Convention should be held in Mayor June. It was a pity that he was not called to give evidence. Perhaps, he could have explained why OPSEU would logically present the operating budget to be approved for the current year, to a Convention in Mayor June, when the financial year is half over? Also to explain, why permission was granted for the 2008 Convention, which was of course, still held in April ? More importantly just as it is not the right of the Union to question how an Employer's Association conduct their business, when or how OPSEU holds its Convention, is none of the Employer's business. I also do not concur with the Majority version, that the testimony of Local Union Officers, that they had no knowledge of alternate delegates being denied permission until the 2007 Convention, "does not prove that alternate delegates were given time off to attend Conventions prior to 2005". The College did not call any evidence at the Hearing. I submit, that is reasonable to conclude, that if there were any instances of alternate delegates being denied permission to attend Conventions prior to 2005, then the College would have called evidence to establish that fact. The interpretation by the Majority, has a partial effect on the other issues raised by the Union, i.e. past practice and estoppel. Turning now to the Majority decision. It may well be, that in future bargaining, amending Article 8.01 to include "and alternate delegates" after the words "elected delegates" would be suffice to resolve any future dispute over Article 8.01. The parties also have several options in amending Article 8.02 or 8.03, if they choose to do so. The door to interfering in the internal affairs of the Union has been opened, it is up to the parties, to close it. Ron Davidson Union Nominee.