HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 22-10-19IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Pursuant to the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act
BETWEEN:
LAMBTON COLLEGE
(“Employer”)
- and –
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 125
(“Union”)
(Grievance 2019-01-20)
_______________________________________________________________
On Behalf of the Employer:
Lisa Meyer
Erin Virostek
Silvana MacDonald
On Behalf of the Union:
Lesley Gilchrist
Michelle Arbour
Richard Teskey
Hearing held via videoconference on March 25 and May 30, 2022.
1
ISSUE
[1] This decision deals with a union grievance alleging the College breached Article 2 of the collective
agreement because it failed to post a full-time position in the Child and Youth (“CYC”) Program.
[2] For several years, the Child and Youth Program has been staffed by three full-time professors,
as well as one partial-load professor and a number of part-time professors. In January 2019, one of the
full-time professors, Mary McHenry, retired. On her departure, the College did not post for a full-time
professor. The College has also not hired any additional faculty for the Program. The courses formerly
taught by Ms. McHenry continue to be taught. They have been distributed amongst both full-time and
non-full-time faculty. There is no dispute between the parties there is a sufficient course load that could
be assigned to a full-time professor, or that Article 2 of the collective agreement requires the College to
give preference to full-time positions over partial-load or sessional positions. There is also no dispute
that the College’s collective agreement obligation in this regard has some exceptions, and one of them
is if there is an operational requirement related to economic viability. In the present case, the College
submits that such an operational requirement exists, and therefore it is not in breach of Article 2. The
Union submits that no such operational requirement exists, and that therefore the College must meet its
obligation to create and post a full-time position in the circumstances.
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
[3] The relevant collective agreement provisions are as follows
2.02 The College will give preference to the designation of full-time positions as regular rather
than partial-load teaching positions, as defined in Article 26, Partial-Load Employees, subject to
such operational requirements as the quality of the Programs, their economic viability, attainment
of the program objectives, the need for special qualifications and the market acceptability of the
programs to employers, students, and the community.
2.03 The College will give preference to the designation of full-time positions as regular continuing
teaching positions rather than sessional teaching positions including, in particular, positions arising
as a result of new post-secondary programs subject to such operational requirements as the quality
of the programs, their economic viability, enrollment patterns and expectations, attainment of
program objectives, the need for special qualifications and the market acceptability of the programs
to employers, students, and the community. The College will not abuse sessional appointments by
failing to fill ongoing positions as soon as possible subject to such operational re quirements as the
quality of the programs, their economic viability, attainment of program objectives, the need for
special qualifications and enrolment patterns and expectations. [Emphasis added]
EVIDENCE
[4] There were three witnesses: Richard Teskey, a full-time professor in the CYC Program since
2010 who also holds the role of Coordinator; Silvana MacDonald, the Dean for the School of Health,
Community Service and Creative Design, which includes the CYC Program; and Julie Carlton, the
2
Director of Financial Planning. It is fair to say that, rather than any meaningful dispute about the facts, to
the extent there was any disagreement between the witnesses it is about the conclusions to be drawn
from those facts.
[5] Given that the issue in dispute is the “economic viability” of the Program, the evidence focused
on how the Program operates and its financial strength in the context of the College as a whole. The CYC
Program is a 3-year advanced diploma program. The objective of the Program is to produce students
who are capable and competent to work in human services positions, specializing in children and their
families. It is financed by a combination of tuition from enrolled students and funding from the Ministry of
Colleges and University (which is also related to the number of enrolled students). The Program has
attracted a solid number of students for several years. From 2003 to 2015, the Program had 49 to 60
students enrolled in the first year of the Program (the subsequent two program years each had less
students, as some students inevitably drop out). For many years it has had no problem covering the
expenses directly associated with the Program. In fact, there has been money left over, which is a
general expectation of the College with respect to all its programs. This is because in addition to covering
direct program expenses, each program is expected to generate sufficient revenue to contribute to
broader College expenses for items by which the program indirectly benefits. Just a few examples of
such expenses are the land, buildings, and student services. This additional revenue, directed at broader
College expenses, is known as the cost-revenue ratio or contribution rate. The College’s general
expectation is that programs have a cost/revenue ratio of 70% or lower (i.e., 70% or less of the revenue
generated should cover direct Program expenses, leaving 30% or more of the revenue to be contributed
to other College expenses). I have referred to this as a general expectation because it was acknowledged
that there may be unique factors related to a specific program, such as contract/regulatory or special
community obligations, which may lead the College to accept less than a 70% ratio. There was no
evidence of the presence of any unique factors related to the CYC Program which warrant this sort of
exceptional treatment from the College. From 2003 to 2011, the CYC Program’s cost/revenue ratio has
been between 62% to 64%.
[6] First year enrollment began to decrease starting in 2016, at first slightly then significantly:
2016 46 students
2017 34 students
2018 30 students
2019 48 students
2020 37 students
2021 31 students
3
[7] Retention in the Program for the second and third year also began to decrease. It is difficult to
determine, with absolute certainty, the exact cause of the decreased enrollment. However, it did correlate
with the following events: changes to the Psychotherapy Act which impacted (or at least were rumoured
as potentially impacting) scope of practice in the community services field; in 2017 there was a college-
wide strike; and in 2020 the pandemic began and the College’s delivery of educational services was
modified in an effort to comply with public health restrictions. Other colleges in Ontario also experienced
decreased enrollment in this type of CYC Program. In fact, when comparing 2021 to 2016, well-over half
of the other similar college programs experienced enrollment declines in the range of 20% to 60%.
[8] In 2015, the Program began not meeting its budgeted amount for each of the three years of the
Program. Certain steps were taken in an effort to address this issue. In 2018 and 2019, the College
provided certain faculty time in their assigned workload (known as the “SWF”) to review the Program for
redundancies and efficiencies, in an effort to reduce expenses. The College also supported the Program
applying for accreditation, which was obtained in 2022, which, it is reasonable to assume, may make the
Program more attractive to certain students. In the months leading up to 2019, Professor Teskey and
the other full-time professor in the CYC Program, Michelle Holbrook voluntarily engaged in an aggressive
recruitment Program that extended beyond the usual College recruitment processes, by personally
attending at various high schools to broaden awareness of the Program. In 2019 they also requested
and obtained from the College’s marketing department $1000 to produce a social media video, again
with the objective of increasing the profile of the Program for recruitment purposes. In 2022, they again
requested similar funding from the marketing department, but were advised by the marketing department
that, when considered against the needs of other College Programs, the CYC Program did not merit such
an allotment. Given they were not requested by the College to do this, it is obviously a testament to their
passion and commitment to the Program. These concerted recruitment efforts likely led to the notable
increase in enrollment in Fall 2019, compared to the other recent years. Not surprisingly, the professors
were unable to maintain these voluntary time-consuming efforts. Dean MacDonald, while acknowledging
the professors’ commitment to the success of the Program, stated that the College does not assign
workload time for marketing activities to faculty. Recruitment duties do form part of a Co-Ordinator’s
duties, as acknowledged by Professor Teskey.
[9] Professor Teskey expressed the view that given the relationship model used in the Program the
quality of education benefited from having three full-time faculty, who he opined had the time and ongoing
relationship with students to mentor and guide students in a way that non-full-time faculty did not. Dean
MacDonald was of the view that non-full-time faculty also engaged with students in this meaningful way.
4
She also noted that the Dean’s office had also made itself available to address student issues so that the
burden of this sort of work did not fall exclusively on faculty.
[10] The Program’s cost/revenue ratio exceeded the 70% target. Below are the cost/revenue ratios
for the years following Professor. McHenry’s retirement when there were only two full-time faculty, as
well as a calculation of what the ratio would have been if there had been three full-time faculty:
ACADEMIC
YEAR
COST/REVENUE RATIO
WITH 2 FT FACULTY
COST/REVENUE
RATIO WITH 3 FT
FACULTY
2019-2020 77% 91%
2020-2021 86% 103%
2021-2022 89% 113%
BRIEF SUMMARY OF PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS
[11] The Union notes that the existence of an operational requirement exempts the College from its
Article 2 obligation to create and fill full-time positions. As such, the onus is on the College to establish
that the existence of an operational requirement. Furthermore, the Union submits that any evidence
submitted in that respect must be considered contextually, and should be scrutinized since this is a clause
which is intended to enable the Union to preserve its bargaining unit integrity.
[12] The Union submits that in order for something to constitute an operational requirement it should
be something that is necessary to the operation of the Program, and not something that the College
simply prefers. The Union relies on the definition of “viable” in Black’s Law Dictionary (“capable of
independent inexistence or standing; capable of succeeding”) and submits that this is not a high bar, with
the focus not necessarily on the present situation but rather the future potential.
[13] The Union submits that it is of significance that enrollment first significantly declined in 2017, when
there was a strike in the college sector, and then again in 2020, when pandemic-related changes to
delivery of education was instituted. The Union submits that enrollment during times of such discreet
and distinct events, which it is reasonable to assume likely have impacted students’ decisions around
enrollment, should not be relied upon to determine ongoing enrollment patterns. The Union emphasizes
the long history of the Program being financially successful.
[14] The Union submits that in determining whether an operational requirement related to economic
viability exists it is important to give regard to the fact that the College is in a position to unilaterally decide
5
whether and how to promote and develop program – decisions which would obviously impact the costs
and revenue associated with a program. The Union also notes that the 70% ratio is a threshold set by
the College. While the Union was clear that it is not alleging any bad faith, the Union submits it would
not be appropriate for the College to simply starve a program of resources and then assert it is not
economically viable, thus avoiding its Article 2 staffing obligation. For this reason, the Union submits
that, in order to establish an operational need based on economic viability, the College should have to
demonstrate it has made some effort to make the Program viable. The Union submits it is not suggesting
this means the College has to do every single thing it possibly could. However, in the present case, the
Union submits that while the College has made efforts to reduce costs (by assigning faculty the task of
finding efficiencies) it has not taken any meaningful steps to increase enrollment. The Union submits this
is particularly problematic, given there is evidence that enrollment could be increased through a stronger
recruitment effort. In this respect, the Union refers to the personal recruitment efforts of Professors
Teskey and Holbrook in 2019 in visiting high schools and creating the social media video. The Union
submits this evidence indicates that there are clear steps the College could take which would have the
result of increasing enrollment and, consequently, improve the economic viability of the Program. In the
face of such evidence, the Union submits it cannot reasonably be concluded that preferring a full-time
position is not possible due to the operational requirement of economic viability.
[15] The Union notes that in college jurisprudence where economic issues have been asserted as
operational requirements the determination that such economic issues are valid has always been based
on evidence of some efforts made to increase economic viability. The Union submits this is the standard
the College should be put to, because it should not be simple to dispose of a collective agreement
obligation. The Union submits the College has no interest in maintaining full-time positions over other
types of positions, and so it has no interest in making an investment that would result in it having to do
so. An interpretation of Article 2 which does not impose some level of obligation on the College to make
such efforts would, the Union submits, effectively allow the College to simply eliminate its collective
agreement obligations through its own actions. The Union notes that it is not actually seeking an
additional full-time position; it is asking the College to maintain the full-time complement at the level it has
been for years.
[16] For its part, the College agrees that it has the onus to demonstrate the existence of an operational
requirement. However, the College submits that there should be some deference to the College’s
decision in that regard. The College submits there is no basis to conclude, as the Union suggests, that
the College must lead evidence of specific actions undertaken to improve the financial situation of a
Program in order to be able to establish the existence of an operational requirement. Rather, the College
6
submits that evidence related to the costs and revenue of the Program is sufficient to be able to make
conclusions about its economic viability.
[17] While the College acknowledges it set the 70% cost/revenue ratio, it submits this is in line with
the Ministry’s view of an appropriate figure (pointing to evidence referenced in St. Lawrence College,
(Devlin), infra. The College also notes that the Union has not suggested that the application of a
cost/revenue ratio is inappropriate, and so the fact the College has considered this factor is a reasonable
action.
[18] The College notes that, whatever the cause of the reduced enrollment, the reality is that by
2017/2018 the Program was not meeting its budgeted enrollment in any of the three years of the Program.
The College also submits there is evidence the College did take steps to address this issue, in terms of
trying to address costs, supporting accreditation, and offering certain Dean’s office supports to faculty
related to student issues. The College submits the evidence indicates that the Program is not meeting its
cost/revenue ratio even with two full-time faculty, and thus it simply is not economically viable to increase
the costs (which will inevitably flow from full-time faculty) at this time.
[19] The College submits that the Union is effectively suggesting that the College needs to provide
time in the professors’ assigned workload in this Program to engage in recruitment activities, which it
notes would be inconsistent with its practice across the College. The College submits that the Union is
effectively arguing that the College must alter its college-wide operational practices before it can rely on
the exemption to which it is entitled in Article 2. Furthermore, the College adds that including this type of
duty on the SWF would actually add to the Program’s expenses,
[20] The College submits that there is no basis to conclude that the current financial difficulties are
just a temporary situation, noting that in the three years since Professor McHenry’s retirement the
Program’s failure to meet the cost/revenue ratio threshold has progressively worsened. The College
submits that given the Program is not currently functioning at the financial level it needs to, there is an
operational need based on economic viability to not increase its expenses by adding another full-time
position.
[21] The parties referred me to the following authorities: Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); St.
Lawrence College and OPSEU, (unreported, February 1, 2011) (Devlin); Algonquin College and OPSEU,
(unreported, July 20, 2004)(McLaren); Niagara College and OPSEU, 1989 CarswellOnt 4861 (Picher);
Algonquin College and OPSEU, (unreported, February 21, 2013)(Jesin); Algonquin College and OPSEU,
93 C.L.A.S. 65 (O’Neil); Humber College and OPSEU, (unreported, April 12, 1994)(Howe); and St.
Lawrence College and OPSEU, (unreported, October 20, 1998) (Swan).
7
ANALYSIS
[22] The issue in this case is whether there exists an operational requirement based on the CYC
Program’s economic viability which would relieve the College of the Article 2 requirement to prefer full -
time positions.
[23] Economic viability was only recently added, in the 2014-2017 collective agreement, to the Article
2 list of operational requirements which trump the preference for full-time positions. The instant grievance
is a case of first instance, as there are no decisions which specifically interpret “economic viability” in the
context of Article 2. However, there is no shortage of decisions which examine a college’s assertion of
the existence of an operational requirement to justify not preferring full-time positions.
[24] In Algonquin College, supra, Arbitrator O’Neil, at paras. 22-23, addressed how an arbitrator
should approach the issue of whether there was an operational requirement that vitiated the college’s
obligation to prefer full-time positions:
The central issue then becomes whether the explanations offered by the College for the status quo,
which involves a large number of hours taught by partial load faculty, amount to operational
requirements. This is essentially a question of fact, although considerable defence is afforded to
the assessment made by management in this regard. The inquiry is not a comparison of the wisdom
of the scenarios proposed by each of the parties. It is whether there exist operational requ irements
which trump the negotiated preference for full-time positions.
It is a basic principle of contract interpretation that the words of the collective agreement are to be
taken in their ordinary meaning. The term operational requirements, connotes s omething
necessary to the operation, for instance something without which the College cannot attain its
Program objectives or market acceptability, to paraphrase Arbitrator MacLaren's decision in
Fanshawe College and OPSEU dated March 2, 1995 at p. 4. The wording implies more than
individual preferences or considerations of a less necessary nature. As discussed in Humber
College and OPSEU, a decision of a Board of Arbitration chaired by Arbitrator Howe dated April 12,
1994, the exceptions for operational requirements ought not to be given a definition that is so
expansive that the interpretation risks virtually eliminating the negotiated general rule that
preference is to be given for full-time positions…
[25] Also, even before economic viability was added to the list specified in Article 2, arbitrators have
addressed how financial factors could effectively result in the existence of an operational requirement.
For example, in St. Lawrence College (Swan), the Board, while emphasizing that mere cost could not
justify a failure to prefer a full-time position, given it will always be cheaper to have part-time or partial-
load teachers, explained that financial factors may still play a role in a determination under Article 2:
On the other hand, there may be occasions when financial factors rise to such a level of importance
that they have a direct bearing on one of the specified operational requirements, or possibly on
another operational requirement which can be identified by inference from those specified. For
example, if hiring one full-time faculty member meant that some course offerings had to be
eliminated in order to maintain the Program as financially viable, then the financial implications
might rise to such a level as to affect the quality of the Program.
8
[26] Arbitrator Devlin applied that approach in another St Lawrence decision. In that case, the union
claimed the college should combine partial load positions and create one full-time teaching position in
the music program. The college presented evidence that the Ministry of Training, Colleges and
Universities had determined that all programs should be able to contribute 30% of its revenue to the cost
of the college’s broader operations (i.e., have a 70% cost/revenue ratio), and so directed the college to
review five of its programs that only were able to contribute 20% or less of its revenue to the college’s
broader operations. The music program was one of those five. As a result of the review, the college
recommended suspension of some of those five programs, but not the music Program. The evidence
was that the music program was new at the time, in existence for only three years, and the college wanted
to give it time to develop. However, the evidence also was that if it hired an additional full-time faculty,
the program’s contribution to the college’s broader operations would be even further decreased. In
addition, the college witness testified that changes to the curriculum to decrease expenditures would
have a negative impact on the quality and market acceptability of the Program. The arbitrator concluded
that “in light of the financial position of the program at the time”, the additional of another full-time faculty
would have necessitated changes which would have a direct negative impact on the quality and market
acceptability of the Program. For this reason, it was concluded there were operational requirements
which justified not hiring a full-time faculty member.
[27] A similar approach was followed in Algonquin College (McLaren). In that case, the union asserted
the college should give preference to a full-time position, rather than continue a sessional position in a
“GM training” Program the college operated. The arbitrator concluded that there was sufficient work to
create a full-time position. However, he also concluded that there was an operational requirement
present because the revenues from the program were dependent on the demand of GM dealerships,
which was out of the control of the college, and thus too “uncertain”.
[28] While the term “economic viability” has not been addressed in the jurisprudence in the context of
Article 2, this term has been considered in the context of another provision, namely Article 27.05(iii). This
provision, which addresses layoff of full-time employees, also obligates colleges to give preference to
continuing full-time positions subject to operational requirements, specifically including “economic
viability” as one such operational requirement. Arbitrator Picher considered this provision (then Article
8.04(c)) in Niagara College, supra. In that case the college had decided to lay-off a full-time teacher in a
day adult training program. The union asserted that the teacher should be assigned teaching in an
evening apprenticeship program staffed with part-time teachers. The college argued that layoff was
necessary because the day program, which was funded by the federal government on a “seat purchase”
basis, was due to be reduced through the “purchase” of fewer seats. The evening program, on the other
9
hand, was funded through provincial funding, with the provincial government being responsible for
recruitment of students for the program. The College’s evidence indicated that the evening
apprenticeship program operated at a loss the previous academic year and the year in which the Union
wanted to assign to it full-time faculty. The evidence was that if the full-time faculty was assigned to teach
in the apprenticeship program, the deficit would increase some four to six times. In fact, the program
would need to add more students to simply maintain the same economic viability. The college’s evidence
also indicated that over the years consultants had made efforts to increase enrollment but been unable
to substantially increase the numbers. The arbitrator concluded the college “could not realistically
anticipate” an increase in enrollment to offset the increased expenses resulting from assigning the full-
time faculty. The arbitrator made the following comments:
Whether the apprenticeship program is essential and whether it would be appropriate for the
College to operate the apprenticeship program at a substantially increased loss, is not a proper
question for this Board of Arbitration to decide. The issue is whether the College was required to
do so by the terms of the collective agreement in order to “give preference to cont inuation of full-
time positions” within the meaning of article 8.04(c). We are satisfied that the College acted within
its jurisdiction in determining that it was not economically viable to continue Mr. Evans in a full-time
position by moving him into the evening apprenticeship program. The evidence reveals that the
impact of so doing would be to substantially increase the economic cost of running the program in
circumstances where the College could not anticipate being able to generate sufficient additio nal
revenue to offset the increased costs.
[29] The Union, noting that in each of these cases there was evidence about efforts the college made
to address the program’s financial situation with respect to increasing revenue, submitted that in the
present case in order to establish the existence of an operational requirement, the College must show it
made efforts to increase its revenues.
[30] I am not persuaded that such a requirement is evident from the analyses in these cases. While
there is no doubt that the colleges in those cases did provide such evidence, there is nothing in the
analyses which suggests that evidence of such attempts are a prerequisite to a college’s ability to assert
an operational need. In fact, where arbitrators have addressed the approach to be taken in assessing
whether, as a question of fact, a college has met its obligation to establish the existence of an operational
requirement, they have spoken in measured terms, saying a certain amount of deference to the college’s
assessment must be shown or that it would not be appropriate for an arbitrator to dictate whether the
college should operate at an increased loss.
[31] It must also be noted that the College is not simply asserting there is an economic viability issue.
There is significant evidence before me that the College has made efforts to address the Program’s
financial situation, by cutting expenses, obtaining accreditation, and providing additional marketing
monies on a one-time basis. While I don’t disagree with the Union that Article 2 must not be interpreted
10
in a way where the College can easily discount its obligations relating to full-time faculty, given its
connection to bargaining unit integrity, the present case is not a situation where the College has simply
watched the financial situation of the Program deteriorate without any intervention. While the Union
expressly noted it was not alleging bad faith, there is also no evidence to suggest the College has
neglected recruitment for this Program. Rather, the College’s unchallenged evidence is that it has
approached recruitment for this Program in a manner that is consistent with how College addresses
recruitment, both college-wide and historically within the Program. Professor Teskey was forthright in
acknowledging that there was no unfairness in the marketing department’s refusal to grant the Program
additional monies in 2022, given the broader College-wide context in which that department must make
its decisions.
[32] At its core, the Union’s case is essentially that the College should do more before it can be
permitted to rely on an exception specified in Article 2, and that the “more” is to assign faculty specific
recruitment duties as part of their workload. Given Dean MacDonald’s evidence that to do so would be
inconsistent with its college-wide practice with respect to faculty workload was unchallenged, the Union’s
position would require me finding that the College should operate in a manner different than it does. Such
a conclusion would be inconsistent with the cautions about the scope of arbitral review referenced in
Niagara College and Algonquin College. Whether an operational requirement exists, or more specifically
whether the economic viability of a program warrants not preferring full-time faculty, is a question of fact.
There is nothing in Article 2 which permits an arbitrator to substitute her own opinion about how the
College should manage its operations.
[33] The inquiry to be undertaken under Article 2 is simply whether there exists an operational
requirement with respect to the economic viability of the Program which justifies not preferring a full-time
faculty. In the present case, I find the evidence establishes there is. There can be no doubt that the
Program is in financial difficulties. In addition to its years of not meeting its budget, since the departure
of Professor McHenry in 2019 it has not met its cost/revenue ratio. While the Union expressed some
concern that the ratio was determined by the College, there is no basis to conclude that it is arbitrary, in
the sense that it has no connection to the College’s actual operations. The expectation that all programs
cover their own direct expenses and also contribute to the College’s broader operations is a reasonable
one. The quantum of the ratio is the same one that has been applied generally to all the College’s
programs for years, and, based on the St Lawrence (Devlin) decision, one that is used at other colleges
and by the Ministry in evaluating the financial viability of a Program. Moreover, there is no evidence
which suggests, let alone upon which it could be concluded, that some other ratio would be more
indicative of a program’s economic viability. I also note that this is not a case where the CYC Program
11
is just slightly above the 70% ratio. Since 2019, the Program’s ratio has been continuously increasing,
to the point where in 2021-2022 it was 89%. There is also clear evidence that the College has undertaken
steps to improve the Program’s financial situation, without the desired necessary results being achieved.
The obvious impact of a third full-time faculty would only negatively impact the situation. While the
additional recruitment efforts undertaken in 2019 resulted in a notable increase in enrollment, beyond
even 2016 levels, the Program’s cost/revenue ratio with just two full-time faculty was still 77%. It would
have been 91% if there were three full-time faculty. As such, there is no evidentiary basis to conclude
that increased enrollment would be sufficient to fully address the Program’s financial issues.
[34] As for the Union’s suggestion that discreet events, such as the strike and pandemic, should not
be given meaningful weight, the College remains responsible for its financial security. While distinct
events which are not expected to have any ongoing impact may not be useful in assessing the exact
nature of future conditions, how long the impacts of the pandemic will be felt is anyone’s guess. Article
2 is essentially a “point-in-time” assessment, and the evidence of the ongoing budget and cost/benefit
ratio challenges indicates that at this point economic viability is an issue for the Program. If the Program’s
situation changes, the Union would of course be free to renew its claim that the College must post a full-
time position.
[35] In all the circumstances of this case, I find the College has established there is an operational
requirement relating to the CYC Program’s economic viability, and thus the College is not required to
give preference to a full-time position.
DISPOSITION
[36] There has been no breach of the collective agreement. The grievance is dismissed.
DATED THIS 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022.
“Jasbir Parmar”
______________________________
Jasbir Parmar, SOLE ARBITRATOR