HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 08-04-25
..IN THE MATTEROFAN ARBITRATION
between
F ANSHAWi:CQl..LEGE
(theuCQllegeH)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION
Localt10
(the "Union")
UNIQN GRIEVANCERE:STAFFING LEVELS IN
THE ART& DESIGN DIVI'SION
(OPSEUGRIEVANCE#2004 - 0110 - 0017)
BOARD OFARBITRATION:
PAIVII;LA COOPER PICHER
SHE:RRILMURRAY
CARLA ZABEK
.. CHAIR
.. UNION NOMINEE
- COLLEGE NOMINEE
APPEARANceS FOR THE UNION:
Tim Hannigan .. Counsel
Gary Fordyce .. Chief Steward
Tom Gel(iard .. 1st Vice';'President
Kathryn.TomasJ .. 1st Vice~President
Darryl Bedford .. 2nd Vice.Presldent
APPEARANCES FOR THE COLLEGE:
Robert J. Atkinson .. Counsel
Sheila Wilson .. Staff Relations Consultant
Fanshawe, Applied Arts & Tech.
Angela Bourne .. Chair, School of Art & Design
A hearing in this matter was held in London, Ontario on March 03, 2005;
June 20, October20 and December 06,2007; April 08 and 09, 2008.
INTERIM RULING
At the hearing held on April 09, 2008, the majority of the Board, with the
Employer Nominee dissenting, delivered an oral ruling respecting a Motion made
by counsel for the Employer to restrict the evidence that could be called by the
Union In seeking to establish that the Employer had breached article 2 of the
collective agreement by falllng to give preference to regular full-time positions In
the Graphic Design Program. The essence of that ruling is set out below:
As a Board, we are In the difflcult posItion of trying to reconstruct various
agreements that were made between counsel, some parts of which were made
out of our presence.
Moreover, in respect of the alleged full-time positions, we have before us a
letter from counsel for the Union dated November 06,2007 in which the Union
expressly reserved its right to add additional hours or to reconflgure available
hours for each position, As well, we are not aware of any agreement where the
UnIon relinquished Its stance in this regard. Further, the Board has nothing
before it to suggest that the parties turned their minds to the eventuality of the
circumstances captured within the Employer's Motion.
In this situation, we find that the most appropriate course is to be guided
by that which makes optimal labour relations sense and that which would be
consistent with the Jurisprudence.
2
To put forth a prima facie case, the Union needs to demonstrate that there
are a sufficient number of appropriate hours to establish one or more full-time
positions. In the documentation the Union provided the Employer in November
of 2007, the Union claimed three full-time positions and set forth a configuration
or a bundling of courses that purported to support the three full-time positions.
The Employer then responded by pointing out, among other things, that
two of the professors who were teaching courses that were within the workload
bundles that the Union had asserted would support the addition of three full~time
positions were already full-time teachers. This reflected a mistake of fact that the
Union had made, a mistake, it would seem, that could have been avoided.
In any event. given the Employer's response, the Union has sought to
reduce its claimed number of full-time positions from three to two. In support, it
wants to reconfigure its groupings using those courses that would be left over
from Its original bundles after removing the courses taught by the two full-time
professors. Accordingly, it seeks to use those courses In presenting its case
directed at establishing a prima facIe case that there is a body of work that would
support the posting of two full~time positions.
The Board considers that it is In the interest of good labour relations for
the Union to be able to accept elements of the Employer's explanation and
3
reduce its claimed number of full-time positions from three to two, In so doing,
the Board considers that It Is appropriate for the Union to be able to use the
remainder of the courses left over after accepting elements of the Employer's
response to reconfigure its groupings in presenting its case directed at
establishing a prima facie case.
The Board further concludes that by allowing the Union to reconflgure its
groupings the Employer has not been prejudiced in any manner that cannot be
cured by the passage of time between this hearing and the next.
The Employer has said that the Union has added two courses that were
not in Its Inltlal bundling of courses, The Board will allow the Employer to submit
in its final argument that adding these two courses is not appropriate. In the
meantime. however, we are satisfied that the Employer has not been prejudiced
in any manner that cannot be cured by the time between this date and the next
when the Union will submit its evidence to set out what it considers to be a prima
facie case,
Pamela Cooper Pic
For the Board
s,o,
4