HomeMy WebLinkAboutTamasi/Wigle 08-06-06
IN THE MATTER OF A WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATION HELD
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 11.02 OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN:
College Compensation and Appointments Council
for the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology
(Fanshawe College)
("tbe College")
and
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(for Academic Employees)
("OPSEU")
Re: Worldoad Grievances of Kathryn Tamasi and Kay Wigle
Workload Resolution Arbitrator: Peter F. Chauvin
Appearances for the College:
Robert J. Atkinson
Sheila Wilson
Sue Miller
Michael Goodmurphy
John Mackara
Counsel
Labour Relations Consultant
Employee Relations Manage.'
School of Human Services Chair
Manufacturing Sciences Chair
Appearances-for OPSEU:
Gavin Leeb
Paddy Musson
Darryl Bedford
Kay Wigle
Kathryn Tamasi
Counsel
Local President
Chief Stewal'd
Grievor
Grievor
Conference call conducted on June 5, 2008
-~-=~
RECEIVED
JAN Z 3 2009 !
GRIEVANCE DEPARTM€~T
, .
1
This confinns the rulings that I made in the conference call that was conducted on June 5,
2008,
OPSEU may file, by June 16, 2008, the Grievors' further explanation of their
submissions to the Workload Monitoring Group (the WMG), which may include
explanations regarding why the Grievors signed their previous Standard Workload
Fonus, The College may file a reply to the above by August 25) 2008.
The workload resolution process~ as set out in Article 11 of the Collective Agreement that
is binding upon the parties, is meant to be an informal and expeditious manner to resolve
workload disputes, Article 11.02 G states that "it is recognized that speedy resolution of
workload disputes is advantageous to all concerned". Article 11,02 F4 states that "the
procedure shall be informal" and grants the Workload Resolution Arbitrator (the WRA)
the authority to determine the appropriate procedure. Other Articles state that the hearing
is to commence within two weeks of the referral of the matter to the WRA~ and that the
WRA shall) following the "informal discussions", issue a written Award within ten
working days of the "informal discussion", The. WRA is required to provide a brief
explanation of the reasons for the Award only if one of the parties requests such reasons
within five days of the Award.
The informal and expeditious nature of the workload resolution process was commented
upon in George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology v. Ontario Public Service
Employees Union (2003)) 68 O.R. (3d) 161 in which the Ontario Court of Appeal stated,
at page 172, that:
" . . ,the WRA focuses on the resolution of individual workload complaints
between the teacher and the College. The purpose of the WRA is to provide
a quick, informal, non-teclmical and non-precedential process for the
resolution of individual disputes."
2
Accordingly, the procedure in this matter will be informal and flexible. The parties must
attend at the hearing prepared to present their final submissions, I may ask some
questions of the Grievors, their Supervisors, or others~ at the commencement of the
hearing, or I may ask OPSEU to commence its submissions. As the parties present their
submissions, I may ask questions of either party or of the Orievors or their Supervisors.
Cross-examination will not be conducted unless there are compelling reasons for doing
so, However, throughout the hearing the parties will be at liberty to respond to
statements being made and will be at liberty to request that I ask a question of the
Grievors, the Grievor's supervisors or any other party.
Signed at Toronto on June 6, 2008
Peter F. Chauvin