Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBeggs 22-01-052131/H IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN ALGOMA UNIVERSITY (“the University” / “the Employer”) -AND - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION on behalf of its LOCAL 685 (Representing Part-Time Contract Faculty) (“the Union”) CONCERNING THE GRIEVANCE of ROBERT BEGGS (“the Grievor”) OPSEU Grievance # 2019-0685-007 Christopher Albertyn - Sole Arbitrator APPEARANCES For the Union: David Wright, Counsel Esther Song, Counsel Bob Beggs, Grievor Dr. Myles McLellan, Local Union President Anthony Fabiano, Steward For the University: Paul Cassan, Counsel Brianne Pringle, Acting Director, Human Resources Christina Barbeau, Faculty Relations Assistant Brittany Vallee, Law Clerk Hearing by videoconference on April 20, July 9, and October 4, 2021. Award issued on January 5, 2022. 1 AWARD Background 1. Robert Beggs is a Sessional Instructor at Algoma University in Sault Ste. Marie. He has been a member of the University’s Part-Time Contract Faculty since 2002. 2. The structure of course teaching allocation at the University is that the full- time faculty are given the first opportunity to teach the course. If the course is not assigned to a full-time faculty member, it becomes available to the Part-Time Contract Faculty. 3. A course that Mr. Beggs was interested to teach, ADMN 3136 NE, 19SP, Introduction to Organizational Behaviour (“the course”), was posted for Part-Time Contract Faculty on the Brampton campus for the Spring / Summer 2019 semester. Mr. Beggs applied. 4. He was not successful. He grieved his non-appointment, OPSEU Grievance # 2019-0685-007, on May 21, 2019. 5. The reason given for Mr. Beggs’s non-appointment to teach the course is that he did not meet the criteria for selection set out in Article 12:18(a) of the parties’ collective agreement. Article 12:18 reads: Criteria for Appointment 12:18 In reviewing applications, the PTAC1 shall utilize the PTAC 1 The PTAC is the Part-Time Appointment Committee, established for each academic Department, under Article 12.08. It consists of the Faculty Chair, the Department Chair, and one full-time faculty member. 2 Recommendation Form (Appendix D) to assess the candidates in accordance with the criteria listed below in order of priority: (a) the applicant has the requisite minimum academic qualifications for the position and minimum relevant professional experience that aligns with the job posting; (b) the applicant has a satisfactory record of teaching at the University and/or satisfactory teaching experience elsewhere which can be substantiated; (c) the applicant with teaching experience at Algoma University shall be given priority in the awarding of appointments. When two candidates with teaching experience are being considered, the one with significantly more teaching experience (defined as a difference of 16 (sixteen) or more seniority credits) shall be given priority in the awarding of appointments; (d) where all of the above criteria are determined to be essentially equivalent between two candidates, then the PTAC may use any other additional criteria deemed appropriate in reaching a recommendation that are consistent with the job posting. This may include interview results. 6. The parties agree that, but for (a) above, Mr. Beggs met the other requirements of Article 12:18. 7. The requisite minimum academic qualifications for the course were the following: Qualifications: a CHRP designation, preferably with a related Master's degree (PhD preferred); subject matter teaching experience at the college or university level (preferably university level), experience teaching in a multicultural environment. 8. CHRP stands for “Certified Human Resources Professional”. Mr. Beggs has 3 an M.B.A. He does not have a CHRP designation, nor does he have a Master’s degree or Ph.D. in Organizational Behaviour. Consequently, the PTAC that considered his application found that he did not meet the requisite minimum academic qualifications to teach the course. 9. The Course Description in the job posting provided the following description of its content: An examination of the problems and solutions pertaining to managing human resources in complex organizations. Topics covered include organizational socialization, leadership and decision-making, the effective exercise of power and influence, handling organizational conflict, and organizational development. An experiential approach is used. 10. The University did not previously require a CHRP designation to teach the course. Full-time faculty assigned to teach the course have not been required to have the CHRP designation. Also, the Human Resources Professionals Association (HRPA) does not require that a university which offers the courses for CHRP students must use someone with a CHRP designation to teach such courses. That is left to each university to decide. 11. The University decided, for all courses that are required for completion of the CHRP designation (not only the organizational behaviour course at issue in this case), that those teaching the students must have the CHRP designation as a minimum qualification. (There are now higher HRPA qualifications: the Certified Human Resources Leader designation (CHRL) and Certified Human Resources Executive (CHRE). Those with such qualifications would surpass the minimum requisite qualification). 12. The evidence establishes that Mr. Beggs would have been capable of 4 teaching the course competently. He had experience teaching the course twice previously in 2004 and 2005. Mr. Beggs also taught the course five times at Sault College for the CHRP certification. He completed two courses in organizational behaviour to complete his M.B.A. in 1984. He had extensive experience in industry as a general manager, director, business manager, purchasing manager, senior business analyst, and financial analyst, among other positions in business, before he became an academic in 2002. In these management capacities, Mr. Beggs had extensive human resources responsibilities. 13. During the Grievor’s University employment, Mr. Beggs has been on the Union’s bargaining committee, and acted as the chief negotiator for the Union in its bargaining with the Employer. Also, Mr. Beggs has previously taught labour relations courses. When doing so, he was approached by HRPA to write the examination questions for those courses. 14. Mr. Beggs therefore has much practical experience of organizational behaviour and human resources in the workplace. The Issue 15. The University accepts that Mr. Beggs had the teaching experience and the required seniority credits to have been appointed, but he lacked the requisite academic qualification. His competence to teach the course is therefore not at issue. What is at issue is the requirement that any person wishing to teach the course must have had, as a minimum qualification, a CHRP designation. 16. The parties accept that there is no equivalency provision in the collective agreement. To clarify, there is no language saying that an applicant for a position may qualify if they have equivalent experience in the subject matter, despite their not having the actual required minimum qualification. Accordingly, the parties accept that there is no basis upon which Mr. Beggs can claim that his competence 5 and experience is equivalent to the requirements of a CHRP designation and therefore that he should have been appointed based on equivalency. The issue is only whether the requirement for the CHRP designation was reasonable. 17. The Union’s position is that the CHRP designation is not a reasonable requirement to teach the course and that, therefore, the Employer cannot rely upon it as a basis for denying Mr. Beggs the opportunity to teach it. The Union submits that the course is at the entry level. Those taking the course include some CHRP students, but also students who are studying business generally. 18. In response, the University submits that it has a discretion to determine the requisite minimum academic qualifications for any course. This arises from its management rights under Article 9, which reads: 9:01 The Association acknowledges the management responsibilities and functions of the Board and agrees that such shall be continued, subject to the express provisions of this collective agreement. Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the Association acknowledges that it is the exclusive function of the Employer to: (a) maintain order, discipline and efficiency; (b) hire, appoint, evaluate, promote, grant leave to, suspend and remove, or otherwise discipline employees, provided that a claim of discharge or discipline without just cause may be the subject of a grievance, to be dealt with as hereinafter provided; (c) plan, direct and control operations; determine job ratings, classifications, requirements of student contact; teaching hours; determine work assignments, methods, schedules, procedures and standards; (d) determine the size, composition and deployment of the workforce; (e) put into effect, enforce and alter reasonable policies, rules and regulations governing the conduct of the Employer and the 6 employees; provided that these rights shall be exercised within the context of the well understood principles of academic freedom, and also that these rights shall be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner that is subject to the express provisions of this Collective Agreement. 19. There is no express limitation in the collective agreement on the Employer’s right to set the minimum academic qualifications. The collective agreement provides, at Article 9.01(e) above, that management’s rights “shall be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner”. That is the only limitation. The question that arises, is whether the minimum academic requirement of a CHRP designation to teach the course was fair and reasonable. Reasonableness 20. The standard for the exercise of management’s discretion to set the requisite minimum standards for any posted teaching opportunity – reasonableness – was explained in an award relied upon by both parties, Ontario Public Service Employees Union v Algoma University, 2020 CanLII 86688 (ON LA) (Trachuk). In the third last paragraph of that decision, Arbitrator Trachuk said: In the absence of language limiting the Employer’s exercise of discretion, the test is not whether the requisite minimum qualifications it set were correct in the sense that only those holding them were capable of teaching the course but whether they were reasonable. 21. Arbitrator Trachuk also described, in the penultimate paragraph of the award, that, within the reasonable exercise of the University’s discretion, it may enhance the academic qualifications for a course beyond the requirement to competently teach the course content: However, it is also reasonable for the Employer to change or increase the 7 academic qualifications required to teach an Economics course, even an introductory course, to a graduate degree in the relevant subject area. Academic qualifications stand for more in a university setting than preparing a person for disseminating course content. The academic qualifications of a faculty, both full-time and part-time, contribute to the status and quality of the program as a whole. The University’s reasons for requiring the CHRP designation 22. The University’s initial explanation for the CHRP designation is contained in an internal memo dated May 29, 2019. Among other points made, it states the following: * The course syllabus provides insights and guidance on HRPA's regulations for attaining a CHRP designation. Often, students have specific questions pertaining to this designation, and instructors with their CHRP designation can provide more accurate advice and support to assist students. * Instructors who have a CHRP designation are considered Subject Matter Experts in HR and such knowledge is imparted, both theoretically and experientially, to students. 23. The University’s evidence on the reasons for adding the CHRP designation to the requisite minimum academic qualification for teaching the course was given by Associate Professor Cathy Denomme, the Director of the University’s School of Business and Economics (“the School”), based in Brampton. 24. She describes that, each year, the full-time faculty review each course that will be offered by the School, with respect to both content and qualifications needed to teach the course. Prof. Denomme says that the School tries to ensure that the courses offered are consistent with developments within the relevant professions. In this way, the School seeks to best prepare the students for the demands of 8 industry. Once the School approves any changes to the syllabus (the course content and/or teaching requirements), the revision is referred to the University Senate for approval. Such approval was obtained for the Organizational Behaviour course at issue. The changed requirements for the course were also referred to the HRPA for its confirmation that the course meets its professional needs. 25. Prof. Denomme explains that among the students who take the course are those who wish eventually to obtain the CHRP designation. The School wishes to improve the status and quality of the program so that it is seen as genuine path to a professional career in human resources. Having a designated professional in the field teach the course adds to the professionalization of the student’s program. 26. Prof. Denomme says that the nature of the human resources profession has changed significantly in recent years. The HRPA adopted binding Rules of Professional Conduct, with a Code of Ethics in 2008. In 2013, the Registered Human Resources Professionals Act, 2013 was passed and the HRPA was recognized as a Tier l regulator in the province of Ontario. Human resources has become more specialized, with higher levels of professional qualification. The three levels of competency – CHRP, CHRL and CHRE, mentioned above – were introduced in 2014. The heightened specialization within the human resources profession has enabled the University to draw on human resources professionals, who are better qualified with professional designations and ongoing refresher education in their field, than was possible when Mr. Beggs taught the course years ago. 27. The organized human resources profession increasingly requires regular refresher training and accreditation. This demonstrates the HRPA’s commitment to continuous improvement among its members. The University believes that its courses for the CHRP program must exemplify the same commitment to improvement and excellence. To that end, it wants those who teach the CHRP 9 courses to be part of the professional organization, the HRPA, that is the overall regulator of the profession. The University considers that CHRP and CHRL professionals are the best equipped to teach the courses and to inculcate the standards expected of human resources practitioners. Prof. Denomme suggests that, in time, the minimum requirement for teaching CHRP courses will move from CHRP certification to CHRL certification. 28. The University believes that tailoring the program to become more professional is attractive to potential students who can see the likelihood of a career following completion of their studies. The University wants students to be able to draw on the practical experience of the human resources professionals who teach them, so that they are properly initiated into the rules and conduct of the profession. The University wants its students to have real life examples from those who are in practice in the profession. In Prof. Denomme’s view, a registered professional in the field of human resources is best able to provide real life examples of relevant contemporary experiences in the field to enliven the theoretical education provided in the course. 29. Prof. Denomme considers that, by insisting that those who teach the CHRP courses are themselves CHRP designated professionals, the University demonstrates that it takes seriously the developments within the human resources profession. Also, although mentorship is not part of the obligations of the course instructor, Prof. Denomme sees advantages for the students in having someone who has passed the professional examinations being available to assist the students to understand the challenges they face in obtaining the professional designation. She gives the example of the professional mentoring groups of students who face the external professional exams. 30. The Union points out that, despite the University’s focus on the practical benefits of having a CHRP designated teacher, the course is not only for those 10 students pursuing a CHRP designation, but also for business students generally who need to have some knowledge of organizational behaviour. 31. Also, the Union points out, when students sign up to take a course, they have no knowledge of the qualifications of the instructor who will teach the course. The parties’ submissions and discussion 32. The Union primary submission is that the University was unreasonable in requiring the instructor to have the CHRP designation without allowing an equivalency to that qualification being considered. 33. The Union’s argument is that in the circumstances of the course, the University was unreasonable to exclude any consideration of an equivalent qualification to the CHRP designation. 34. The circumstances the Union refers to are the following. The course itself is a general introductory course on organizational behaviour, it is not a specialist course. The students who take the course are not only those seeking the CHRP designation; the course includes regular business B.B.A. (Bachelor of Business Administration) students. The governing body of the CHRP designation, the HRPA, does not require those who teach the course to have the CHRP designation; that is strictly a requirement of the University. Full-time faculty who might teach the course (they have preference to teach before the part-time, contract faculty have the option to do so) are not required to be CHRP designated. The mentoring referred to by Prof. Denomme that a teacher with CHRP designation can give to the students is not part of the teaching requirement and, the Union submits, it ought not to have been taken into account by the School when the CHRP designation requisite was introduced. 35. The Union submits, that having regard to these circumstances, the 11 University acted improperly, and unreasonably, in denying those, like Mr. Beggs, within the part-time contract faculty from the opportunity to teach the course before it was advertised externally. The Union suggests that the imposition of the standard, without the opportunity for recognition of equivalency, amounted to a denial of the entitlements of seniority that give the part-time faculty the opportunity to be selected for such work. 36. In other words, the Union is saying that the requirement itself, for the teacher to have the CHRP designation, is not unreasonable, but, in the above circumstances, without the requirement for the PTAC to consider equivalent qualifications, the outcome is unreasonable because it effectively denies the seniority rights of the part-time faculty. 37. The Union suggests that what the University did amounts to “credentialism”, requiring credentials unnecessarily, without the reasonable recognition of equivalency in competence, knowledge, qualification, and experience. 38. The Union relies on C.U.P.E., Local 82 v. Windsor (City), 2011 CarswellOnt 6040, 107 C.L.A.S. 55 (Dissanayake). There Arbitrator Dissanayake found, on the facts of that case, that the educational requirements of the job postings were not related to, nor required, for the performance of the positions posted. The decision quotes, at paragraph 39, from Reynolds Aluminum Co. of Canada v. I.M.A.W., Local 28 (1974), 5 L.A.C. (2d) 251 (Ont. Arb.) (Schiff) at p. 254, which makes clear that in exercising the managerial discretion to set qualifications for a position, “the chosen qualifications” must bear a “reasonable relation to the work to be done”. 39. Further, at paragraph 41, the decision quotes from Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. Staff Assn. of Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan 12 Toronto (1979), 24 L.A.C. (2d) 206 (Ont. Arb.), at 213-214 (Adams), in which Arbitrator Adams wrote: ... in appropriate circumstances specific academic qualifications can be required for a position, but arbitrators have required the employer to demonstrate that educational qualifications are necessary to discharge the duties of the job: ... In addition, it has been suggested that if an employee is able to demonstrate affirmatively that his actual qualifications and abilities were sufficient to competently perform the job in question without the required academic standing, an arbitrator might well require the employer to appoint the employee: see Re Montreal Children’s Hospital and Federation of United Nurses (1974), 8 L.A.C. (2d) 17 (Bairstow), and Re Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada LTD and United Rubber Workers, Local 189 (1973) 2 L.A.C. (2d) 438 (Brown). 40. This approach was followed in Sunbeam Home v. London & District Service Workers' Union, Local 220 1983 CarswellOnt 2476, [1983] O.L.A.A. No. 81, 13 L.A.C. (3d) 183 (Rayner), where the board of arbitration found that it could evaluate the equivalency of the grievor’s qualifications, even when the job posting did not refer to the alternative of equivalent qualifications. This was made clear at paragraph 20 of that decision: 20 These authorities support a conclusion that a board of arbitration may examine equivalency in terms of formal educational requirements. This conclusion is also supported by common sense. Formal requirements relate to the job. To conclude that a person who lacks the precise stated qualifications, when that person can clearly establish true equivalent qualifications would not only turn a blind eye to the realities of the situation but would also defeat legitimate expectations of employees without advancing any legitimate interest of the employer. 41. Arbitrator Dissanayake quotes, at paragraph 42 of his decision, from Re St. Boniface General Hospital, (1992) 29 C.L.A.S. 481 (Hamilton), at paragraph 70: 13 Arbitral authorities have also recognized the right of an employer to raise or increase required qualification levels (educational or otherwise) in order to reflect actual changes in responsibility which have occurred in a particular job but such increased qualification levels must be reflective of “actual” changes in the duties as at the time of posting. In other words, such qualifications cannot be imposed in anticipation of the fact that the job itself may expand or change at some time in the future [see Re Public Utilities Commission of City of London and C.U.P.E., Local 4 (1983) 12 L.A.C. (3d) 378) (Palmer) at p. 382-383 …). Arbitrators have also stated that increased educational qualifications for a job will be subject to careful scrutiny where such qualifications were not previously required and where prior and/or existing employees successfully perform the same job without such educational qualifications. 42. The Union relies on these passages to argue that the University cannot change the educational qualifications for the position posted when there has been no change in the actual duties of the teaching position; and that equivalency should be considered as part of the determination of whether a candidate is qualified. 43. The Union refers also to Re City of Cornwall and Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 452, 1987 CarswellOnt 4919, 4 C.L.A.S. 62 (Emrich), at paragraph 22, which states that, in assessing equivalent qualifications, an arbitrator should take “a broad and liberal view of relevant experience” …. “so as not to erode or destroy the value of the seniority benefit to long service employees ....” 44. The Union also cites Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and HSA BC (Damji), Re 2018 CarswellBC 2520, 137 C.L.A.S. 198, 299 L.A.C. (4th) 51 (Kinzie), which, at paragraph 76, states, “It is the core duties of a position that are being actually performed that reflect ‘the work to be done’ and the qualifications required must be reasonable in relation to them.” Similarly, C.U.P.E., Local 2330 v. Glen Haven Manor Corp. 2006 CarswellNS 261, 146 L.A.C. (4th) 415, 84 14 C.L.A.S. 167 (North), at paragraphs 227-230, and University of Prince Edward Island v. U.P.E.I.F.A. 2007 CarswellPEI 83, 163 L.A.C. (4th) 247, 90 C.L.A.S. 249 (Christie) make clear that a qualification required must be necessary for the performance of the work to be done. 45. Based on the above authorities, the Union argues that the University erred from the reasonableness standard when it did not give the PTAC making the selection of the teacher for the course the alternative of selecting someone with equivalent qualifications to those of a person with the CHRP designation. 46. As the Employer points out, Article 12:18 is an instructional list used to assess and distinguish applicants, not a skills and ability clause. The purpose of Article 12:18 is to instruct the PTAC on what applicants it might consider. It is not intended by the parties that the PTAC compares the relatively merits and demerits of different applicants who, through experience or other qualifications might have equivalent skills and ability to those who meet the posted requisite minimum academic standard. 47. The one directly comparable case from the same industry, University of Prince Edward Island, above, concerned whether an unsuccessful applicant was “equally qualified” to the two academics who were found to be qualified. The facts in that case showed that the excluded individual was equally qualified in circumstances where the arbitrator was empowered to consider equivalency. 48. Consequently, the University says, the cases relied on by the Union don't apply because they focus on the relative merits of different applications based on their skills and abilities. 49. Besides University of Prince Edward Island, above, all the cases referred to by the Union involve permanent appointments to positions in circumstances where 15 the employee could show that the posted requisite qualifications either bore no reasonable relationship to work of the job posting, or that the employee had the skills and ability equivalence to the posted requisite qualifications. 50. Part-time contract faculty appointments are not permanent appointments. Hundreds of such appointments are made each semester. The process needs to be expeditious. Consequently, the parties have agreed on a priority order. First comes Article 12:18(a). The candidate to teach the course must have the requisite minimum academic qualifications for the position and the minimum relevant professional experience that aligns with the job posting. This is the first level of winnowing; of screening out those who don't qualify. Those who pass this step, are then assessed progressively under sub-paragraphs (b) to (d). 51. I am not persuaded that the parties intended equivalency to be implied within Article 12:18(a). Typically, in collective agreements covering academic appointments of part-time contract faculty, the parties expressly include equivalency if they intend it to apply. Yet these parties have chosen not to do so. The application of implied equivalency would fundamentally alter the nature of the parties’ selection process. The effect would require a much greater level of scrutiny of each of the candidates into what is now a relatively straight forward initial assessment by the PTAC, namely, under Article 12:18(a), to determine whether the candidate has the requisite minimum academic qualifications for the position, as set out in the job posting. 52. However, this does not fully address the Union’s claim of unreasonableness. The Union’s case is that the error is not with the PTAC doing their duty under Article 12:18(a). The Union is not saying that they should have applied equivalency. It is saying that those who set the requisite minimum academic qualifications for the course – the School – should, in the posting, have included an equivalency standard when stipulating that the CHRP was the minimum 16 qualification. 53. The Union made the point that the full-time faculty teaching the course are not required to have the CHRP designation, and that therefore it is unreasonable to require the designation for the part-time faculty. 54. The test to be applied is whether the employer’s inclusion of the CHRP designation for the part-time posting was reasonable. The minimum qualifications are to be objectively reviewed in the context of what is reasonable and are not to be held up to scrutiny against the standards for the full-time position. Therefore, the Union’s position that the CHRP qualification is not required for the full-time position does not lead to the automatic conclusion that it is unreasonable to have included it in the part-time posting. 55. The University explains that the processes for the appointment of faculty are quite different under the full-time collective agreement from the appointments of part-time faculty when an opportunity arises to post such appointments. The posting gives the Employer an opportunity to review and change the requirements for the course and set different qualification standards. The Employer can review what it wishes to accomplish when it posts a course among the part-time faculty. For the course itself, the Employer had the opportunity, which it took, to enhance the teaching qualifications it wished to introduce. 56. Prof. Denomme explained why the School wished to have the CHRP designation as the minimum qualification for the course. All of the reasons she provided are bona fide because they relate to the operational needs of the School. The question, though, is whether they are reasonable in not including an equivalence option. 57. Reasonableness covers a range of possible decisions, provided the decision 17 has a rational connection or reasonable relation to a legitimate operational objective. I may disagree with the reasoning for a decision, but that is not the test. The test is whether the reason given meets the reasonableness standard. This was expressed as follows in Seneca College of Applied Arts & Technology v. O.P.S.E.U. 1996 CarswellOnt 6097, [1996] O.L.A.A. No. 65, 42 C.L.A.S. 133, 52 L.A.C. (4th) 129 (Schiff), at paragraph 11: …. The purpose of the "reasonable relation" formula is clear. The arbitrator with no insider's knowledge of the employer's enterprise and no responsibility for operating it must leave the employer broad leeway to decide what qualifications are needed to have a particular job done at least adequately. The leeway rejects an arbitrator's authority to second-guess the employer just because it is the arbitrator's opinion the particular qualifications are not needed. All that is required under the formula is a relationship within the bounds of reason, a standard to which an arbitrator can be educated in the hearing room. But, since the challenge to the qualification comes from the union, to succeed the union must persuade the arbitrator that the chosen qualifications do not bear that reasonable relation. See also, North Bay Regional Health Centre v. O.N.A. 2012 CarswellOnt 8732, [2012] O.L.A.A. No. 334, 111 C.L.A.S. 273, 222 L.A.C. (4th) 113 (Rose); Re York University and CUPE, Local 3903 (Hooven), 2001 CarswellOnt 10005, [2001] O.L.A.A. No. 761, 65 C.L.A.S. 353 (Roberts); General Dynamics Canada v. Independent Union of Defense Contractors, 2006 CarswellOnt 5770, [2006] O.L.A.A. No. 196, 150 L.A.C. (4th) 41, 85 C.L.A.S. 253 (R.M. Brown); and York University v. C.U.P.E., Local 3903, 2010 CarswellOnt 10614, [2010] O.L.A.A. No. 470, 103 C.L.A.S. 257, 199 L.A.C. (4th) 145 (Slotnick), particularly paragraphs 31-32. For a discussion of the issues of “credentialism” and equivalency in the context of the reasonable exercise of management’s discretion to set job posting qualifications, see C.U.P.E., Local 1750 v. Ontario (Workplace Safety & Insurance Board), 2012 CarswellOnt 733, [2012] O.G.S.B.A. No. 18, 109 C.L.A.S. 222 (Nairn), particularly paragraphs 52-56. 18 58. In this case, the School has decided to project itself publicly as being closely aligned to the professional aspirations of the various professional bodies, such as the HRPA, that regulate the professions that some or more of the students taking the courses will ultimately join. It seeks to do this through the courses it offers, and by who teaches those courses. The School wants a close link between its courses and the professions that the students may ultimately become part of. Requiring the instructor to be a professional from the HRPA helps to achieve those purposes. 59. The Union submits that this objective is merely to increase the reputation of the University; it will not necessarily result in any improvement to the teaching of the course. However, as Prof. Denomme mentioned, enhancement of the University’s reputation is just one element in the overall consideration to require the CHRP designation. In any event, improving the University’s reputation is a reasonable consideration. 60. While mentoring students is not expressly part of the teaching requirement, having someone with a CHRP gives them the ability to guide and inspire students on their career progression in their field of study. The School sees this as a means to facilitate student retention as well as improve employment outcomes for its students. This is, of course, speculative, but it is not unreasonable speculation. Those effects are possible, and so are rationally related to the School’s choice. As the Employer argued, the CHRP designation is reasonably seen by the School as bolstering the standing, status, and quality of the course. 61. As Prof. Denomme said, the standards and expectations of a human resources professional have changed materially over recent years, with heightened specialization. Professionals in the field need to keep abreast of changing standards of behaviour. The HRPA endeavours to do this through continuous education and new qualifications. Having a CHRP designated teacher helps to introduce students in the course to these developments. 19 62. My conclusion from the above is that it was not unreasonable for the University to upgrade the minimum academic qualifications of the course based on its goal to professionalize those delivering the course. The objective bears a reasonable relation to the intention of the School to situate itself as closely as it can to the human resources profession that will be the career objective for many of the students who enrol in the course. To require the University to have had the alternative of an equivalent qualification would dilute the purpose being sought by the School. In the circumstances, I find it was not unreasonable for the School not to have offered the alternative of equivalence when it set the requisite minimum qualification for teaching the course. 63. The grievance is therefore denied. DATED at TORONTO on January 5, 2022. _____________________ Christopher J. Albertyn Arbitrator