Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAceti 81-12-22 " Ac e -!-;--- Dee- 22~/ifl IN THE MATTER OF AN A~BIYRATION BETWEeN: SAULT COLLEGE (Hereinafter referred to as the College) AND ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (Hereinafter referred to as the Union) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF A. ACETI. BOARD OF ARBITRATION: Gail Brent A. Shields, College Nominee Eva Marszewski, Union Nominee APPEARANCES: FOR THE COLLEGE: w. J. Hayter, Counsel Charles Shand R., K. r'1cClelland Peter Lloyd FOri. THE UNION: s. T. Goudge, Counsel A. ACQti, Grievor HEARING HELD IN TORONTO ON OCTOBER 26, 1981. DECISION '1'he matter before the board arises out of a grievance (Exhibit 1) filed on April 23, lS~l alleging that the grievor was improperly laid off. Counsel for tlle College subr:iitted that the Union had not complied \'Iith article 8.08 (b) of the collective agreement, and that the election there set out is a precondition to the jurisdiction of this board to hear and dcter~ine the matter. The Union did not agree with the position that the election was a precondition to the jurisdiction of the board. hith the agreement of the parties, the board was not required to determine the question, and the parties proceeded to deal with the merits of the case vlithout prejudice to any future position that they 1 " might take concerning any condition precedent to jurisdiction in article 8.08(b). The board was informed that the rights of a third party could be affected by the decision in this case. That third party, Mr. J. Bowes, was notified of the hearing and his right to participate; he did not attend. The grievor's seniority date is l\pril 1, 1976. He \-Jas actively employed at the College from that date until July, 1981, when his layoff was effective. 'rhe grievor has had a Class A Motor Vehicle licence since 1968. Prior to joining the College, he worked as a mechanic, for the most part in his O\vn businesses. His testimony indicated that his practical experience as a mechanic was gained by wor~ing primarily on automobiles, although he did do some work on heavy equipment. The types of heavy equipment on which he worked were five ton trucks and skidders from logging operations. Since being employed as a Teaching Master at the College he has been teaching in the Automotive Department. In 1976 he also taught in the Heavy Equipment Department for about one month, when a Teaching Master in that Department had to undergo surgery. At that time he taught p rim a r i 1 Y i nth eel e c t r i c a 1 and en gin e bra k"s are a s 0 f the He a vy Equipment course. There was no criticism of his performance then or later. '1'he grievor does not possess a Certificate of Qualification as a Heavy Duty Equipment Mechanic, and he does not possess a Heavy Equipment endorsement on his Class A Licence. l"lr. Bowes, the 'l'eaching Master he seeks to displacE:, teaches in the Heavy Duty Equipment Department, and possesses a Certificate 2 of Qualification as a Heavy Duty Equipment f'1e~hanic. The seniority date for Nr. Bowes is September 25,1978. t>1r. Bovles has always taught in the Heavy Duty Equipment Department. Prior to his appointment at the College he had seven years of experience working on heavy duty equipment, primarily in the mining industry. The evidence indicates that Teaching Masters in the two areas in question are required to teach both the theory and practical areas of the curricula set out by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities for the appropriate apprenticeship programmes. It appears that approximately sixty percent of the . t i me i ssp e n tin the c 1 ass roo m de a 1 i n 9 ....I i t h 't he 0 r y , and the balance is spent in the shops where student work is supervised. 'I'he grievor compared the curricula for the two programmes (Exhibits 3 and 4) and concluded that roughly seventy p~r cent of th~ two. was identical. The remaining thirty per cent of the Heavy Duty Equipment curriculum consists of material which is not dealt with in the automobile mechanic programme. The Heavy Duty Equipment Mechanic Training Profile (Exhibit 3) lists six units to be taught to students'in the programme. Those units are: Applied Work Practices and Procedures, Engines, Fuel Syst-ems, Electrical Systems.. Hydraulic and Pneumatic Systems, and Power Trains and Control Systems. Examining the grievor's analysis of the curriculum, "it appears that the areas of greatest difference between Heavy Duty Equipment and automobiles are in Fuel Systems, Hydraulic and Pneumatic Systems, and Power Trains and Control Systems. In those three areas there 3 was a significant portion of material which the grievor identified as not being taught in the automotive programme, and about which he testified that he could not teach now and do'a good job of it. He also agreed that the unit entitled Hydraulic and Pneumatic Systems was a very important part of the Heavy Duty Equipment programme, and that the areas Fuel Systems and Hydraulic and Pneumatic Systems are "critical" areas. The grievor also agreed that his experience in the automotive area helped make him able to teach his students in the Automotive Department. He agreed that because he has met the problems himself he is better able to point them out to his students when they are trying to diagnose the troubles encountered in the shop. rfhe grievor agreed that someone with sev~n years of experience working on heavy equipment would likely have encountered most problems and be able to use that knowledge in the course of teaching in the shop. He agreed that Hr. Bowes has a "clear advantage" over him in the practical side, and in the teaching of Hydraulic and Pneumatic Systems and Fuel Systems generally. It was the grievor's contention that he understood a 11 0 f the are as, but \-1 a s not pre s e n t 1 Y co mp e, ten t tot e a c h the m without preparation. r'ir. Shand, the Chairman of Technical Trades at the College, teatified that there was a significant difference between a Class A licence, a Class A licence with a diesel endorsement (or a heavy equipment endorsement as it was referre~ to earlier), and a Certificate of Qualification as a Heavy Duty Equipment Mechanic. He said that the Class A licence with the endorsement only allows the person to work on di2sel engines. He also said that a person 4 \'Jith a Class A licence Hould need t....JO years of work experience in the trade to get a Certificate of Qualification. All of the Teaching Masters in the Heavy Equipment Department have Certificates of Qualification. r.1r. Shand said that he considered the grievor1s complaint concerning the layoff, and denied his claim because there was no indication that the grievor had ever worked on heavy equipment. He said that the grievor never gave any indication that he had ex per i e n c e w 0 r kin g on any t h i n got her t hat aut 0 mob i Ie s . In the course of assessing the grievor's qualifications, Mr. Shand referred to the grievor's previous work record before joining the College. Mr. Shand said that he considered Mr. Bowes to be better qualified to teach the course in questio~ than the grievor, and that the grievor1s lack of experience on heavy equipment was his main concern. Mr. Lloyd is not employed at the College. He is Technical Training Nanager for Crother Equipment, and is involved in the design and supervision of the provincial apprenticeship programmes in the Heavy Duty Equipment area. It was his opinion that the area of hydraulics was the "major" area when one looked for apprentices in the province. He was also of the opinion that fuel systems was an improtant area, and that someone with a Class A licence and no experience in the servicing of Heavy Duty Equipment was not qualified to teach in the department. Mr. . Lloyd had never seen the grievor teach, and had no first hand knowledge of the grievor's ability to teach in the department. 5 The relevant portion ,of the collective agreement is reproduced below: 8.05 When the College decides to lay off one or more employees who have completed the probationary period, the following placement and displacement provisions shall apply to full-time employees. It is understood that in the application hereof the College retains the right to determine the employees who will most effectively and efficiently carry out the objectives, operations, programmes and purpose of the College consistent with the following: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) failing placement under paragraph (a) above, such employee shall be reassigned to displace another full-time employee in the same classification provided that: (i) the displacing employee h~s the competence, skilll experience and suitability to fulfill the requirements of the po sit ion reI a t i vel y .e qua 1 tot h e employee being displaced; (ii) the employee being displaced has lesser seniority with t~e College. In order to succeed the grievor must show that he ~as the "competence, skill, experience and suitability to fulfill the requirements of the position" of Teaching Master in the Heavy Duty Equipment course taught by Mr. Bowes which are "relatively equalll to those of Mr. Bowes. Putting the grievor's case at its strongest, we can assume that he is no\o/' competent to teach r 0 ugh 1 Y s eve n t y per c en t 0 f the co u r s e \v hie h Mr. Bowes 1:; e a c h e s , and that he believes that he can prepare himself to teach the remaining thirty per cent. We have no reason to assume other than that Hr. Bo\ves is presently competent to teach one hundred per cent of the course he teaches. It may be that the grievor is right when he asserts that he would be able to prepare the lessons for those parts of the 6 . ' , , . course with which he is not familiar; however, when one compares his experience with that of Mr. Bowes, it is clear that Mr. Bowes has had ~uch more practical experience diagnosing what is wrong with heavy equipment and repairing that equipment than the grievor has had. It seems apparent from the evidence that such experience would make any instructor in the area much more skilled in the supervision of students in the shops than one without a similar sort of experience. When one examines the evidence, it appears that the differences between heavy equipment and automobiles are such that it is not self-evident that a Class A mechanic could be expected to know ho\'/ to diagnose and repair pr'oblems in the fuel and hydraulics systems of the machines in question. I t seems, the refo re, tha t the d if fe rences be tween the grievor and Mt. Bowes are mere significant than the differences between two relatively equal Teaching Masters with different degrees of familiarity within their areas because of the length of time they have spent teaching in them. 'l'his appears to be a case of two Teaching l>lasters, each of whom is skilled and competent within his own area; but whose areas~ while overlapping to a considerable degree, are dissimilar enough to require different skills, experience, and competence to be able to teach the full range of subjects in each programme. It is therefore not possible, on the evidence presented to this board, to conclude that the grievor vIas relatively equal in "competence, skill, experience and suitability" to fulfill the requirements of the job performed by Mr. BO\les. That is, it is not possible to 7 .. conclude, on the evidence, that the grievor could step into the job now being performed by Mr. Bowes and perform it adequately. For all of the reasons set ~ut ~bove the grievance must fail. DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS ').. ~ ...J.. DAY OF ~Vl--'~i-\ ,1981.. . ~,-.J QUA-/i- Gail Brent. {( A J ' (( 'S '~cL I concur/~lIt A. Shields, College Nominee I concur/dissent s;.~(V~ , ~" h ft~({fl(/ ~ ; Eva Marszewski, Union Nominee 8