The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUnion 04-10-05INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION BETWEEN: COLLEGECOMPENSATIONANDAPPOINTMENTSCOUNCILFORTHECOLLEGESOFAPPLIEDARTSANDTECHNOLOGY (THECOLLEGES) AND: ONTARIOPUBLICSERVICEEMPLOYEESUNION (forAcademicEmployees) (THEUNION) ANDINTHEMATTEROFUNIONGRIEVANCES HOWARDD.BROWN,SOLEARBITRATOR APPEARANCESFORTHECOLLEGES; WallaceKenny,Counsel SallyRoy APPEARANCESFORTHEUNION;, JohnMonger,Counsel AHEARINGINTHESEMATTERSWASHELDATTORONTOON AUGUST24,2004. AWARD 2 TheUnionfiled24grievancesrelatingtoeachofthe24Collegeswhichare coveredbythetermsofacollectiveagreementbetweenthesepartiesforAcademic employeeswhichbecameeffectiveSeptember1,2003toAugust31,2005.These grievancesclaimthattheCollegeshavefailed"tomakeproperfullpaymentofretroactive salarytoalleligiblepersonsasperArticles14,26and36andtheMemorandumof SettlementdatedMarch2,2004."TheUnionrequeststhattheColleges"makefull paymentofallretroactivemoniesowingplusinteresttoallindividualswhohavenot receivedproperretroactivepayment." Eacho(thegrievancesisinthesameformandinvolvesthesameissuesothatit wasagreedbythepartiestodealwithallofthegrievancestogetheratthishearingand that.thisawardwouldapplytoeachofthegrievancesfiledinthismatter. Followingnegotiationsbytheparties,thecollectiveagreementwassignedon April21,2004.Article36oftheagreementsetsoutitsdurationasfollows: "36.01ThisAgreementshalltakeeffect commencingonthedateofsigningandshallhaveno retroactiveeffectorapplication(exceptSalarySchedulesin Article14andArticle26)andshallcontinueinfullforce andeffectuntilAugust31,2005,andshallcontinue automaticallyforannualperiodsofoneyearunlesseither partynotifiestheotherpartyinwritinginJanuary,2005, thatitdesirestoamendthisAgreement." 3 ReferencewasmadetotheCollege'sOfferofSettlementdatedAugust28,2003 andaRevisedOfferofSettlementonDecember18,2003.Intheformer,therewasno referencetoretroactivepaymentwhileintherevisedofferitwasstated: "Inordertoobtainatimelysettlement,weai'epreparedtooffer retroaetivitytoSeptember1,2003,ifthisofferisaccepted bymidnightIanuary16,2004." "'ofThetssuemthesegrievancesisnot aquestionOfwhetherthereisretroacttvity salaryincreasesbutwhetheronlythosewhowereemployedasofthedateofthesigmng ofthecollectiveagreementonthe2l*tdayofApril2004areentitledtoretroactive paymentsorwhetherretroaetivityappliestoallemployeesinthebargainingunitasofthe effectivedateoftheapplicationoftheSalaryScheduleseffective.September1,2003.By iii Arttcle36.01,itIsclearttisanissuerelatingonlytotheretroacttveapphcationofthe salaryschedulesinArticles14and26whichrefertoPartialLoadEmployeesandFull TimeProfessors.ThesalaryscheduleforFull-TimeProfessors,Counsellorsand LibrariansissetoutatArticle14.03(A)I(a),whichincludesthewagelevelsfromStep3 throughtoStep20whichIsheaded,effecttveSeptember1,2003andcontinuingmthe Schedulewithincreasesthroughtothosemade'effectiveApril1,2005".Thesalary scheduleapplicabletoPost-SecondaryPartialLoadProfessorsandNonPostSecondary PartialLoadProfessorsissetoutinArticle26.04withthewagelevelst'romStep3to Step20headed,effectiveSeptember1,2003"andwithotherwageincreasesthroughto thosemade,"effectiveApril1,2005". Itisnotindisputeastothepaymentofretroactivitytoactiveemployeesasofthe dateofsigningthecollectiveagreementattheratesestablishedinthesesalaryschedules. Thedisputeconcernsthosepersonswhowereemployeesbetweentheexpirationofthe lastcollectiveagreementandthedateofsigningorratificationofthiscollectiveagreement butwerenotemployeesoftheCoilegesatthattime.ItistheUnion'spositionthatany memberofthebargainingunitduringthistimeperiodfromtheexpirationoftheprevious collectiveagreementtothedateofsigningthecurrentcollectiveagreementisentitledto retroactivepaymentofthewagerateestablishedinthesalaryschedulesofthecolleetlve agreement. Therearenomaterialdifferencesastothefactsrelatingtotheissueincludingthe offerofsettlementinAugustwhichdidnotcontainanylanguageconcerningthepayment ofretroactivesalaryincreasesandthattheeffectivedatewouldbethedateofratification whichwasplacedpriortothecommencementdateforthecollectiveagreementsothatthe Collegedidnotexpecttopayanyretroactiveincreasesatthatstage.TheRevisedOfferin Decemberreferredtoretroactivityasindicatedabove,butthatofferwasnotaccepted. TheMemorandumofSettlementdatedMarch2,2004providedthatonlythesalary scheduleswouldhavearetroactiveeffectinaccordancewithArticle36.01. 5 ThatMemorandumofSettlementreferredinparttothefollowingterms: "31TheCollectiveAgreementshallbeamendedbythoseterms andconditionsagreedtobetweenthepartiesasset OutinAppendix2tothisMemorandum(10pages). 4.Nothingshallberetroactivepriortothedateofo*-I ratification,exceptwhereotherwisespeclficalynoted.Retroactivepaymentsshallbemadewithin30dayfollowing thedateofratification?' TheUniondoesnotdisputethatduringthenegotiationsoftheparties, retroactivitywasonlydealtwithatgenerallevelsandthespecificissueastothewage entitlementtowageincreasestopersonswhohadlefttheemploymentoftheColleges sincetheexpiryofthepreviouscollectiveagreement,wasnotdealtwithbytheparties.It wastheUnion'sunderstandinghowever,thatinthepast,wheretherewereprovisionsfor retroactivepayments,theywereappliedprorated,topersonswhohadleftthebargaining unitpriortotheeffectivedateofthecollectiveagreement.EvidenceofthepriorDuratlon Clausesintheparties'co!lectiveagreementscommencingfrom1976werefiledatthe hearingandindicatetheconsistentuseofidenticallanguagetothatcontainedinthepresentArticie36.01wherebytypicallyonlythesalaryschedulesweresubjectto retroactivepayment.Inthe1996coUectiveagreement,becauseoftheSocialContract legislation,thepartieslimitedtheeffectofthesalaryschedulesto1998andalumpsum paymentwasnegotiatedfortheperiodpriortothatyearandwasextendedtoFull-Time andPartialLoademployeeswhohadceasedtobeemployeespriortothatperiod. 6 Further,referencewasmadetoaMemorandumtothePresidentsoftheColleges datedSeptember30,1992astotheimplementaf!oioftheAcademiccollectiveagreement andtheimplementationofretroactivityforthefull-timeProfessors,Counsellorsand LibrarianswhereArtlele34.01wasinpart: "Thisagreementshalltakeeffectcommencingonthedate ofsigningandshallhavenoretroactiveeffectorapplication (exceptastothesalaryschedulessetoutinArticle14, salarieseffectiveasifSeptember1,1991andSeptember1, 1992)... TheMemooftheChairsetoutthat: "Allfull-timeandpartial-loadfacultywhohaveceased employmentwiththeCollegesinceSeptember1,1991are tobecontactedattheirlastknownaddressandretroactive paymentmadefortheperiodworked." ItistheUnion'spositionthatthishadbeentheapproachoftheCollegestothe issueoftheretroactivityofwagesexceptwherethepartieshadotherwisedealtwiththe issueorwheretherehadbeennoretroactivityduetotheemployees.Itreliesonthe practiceindicatedintheforegoingwhichfollowedtheMemorandumofS'ettlementdated June3,1992whichincludedthefollowingterms: .7 "3.Exceptasmaybespecificallystatedotherwise,nonmonetary amendmentstotheAgreementshallbeeffectiveonthesigningoftheAgreement. 4.Exceptasmaybespecificallystatedotherwise,newmonetarybenefits orchangestoexistingbenefitsshallbeeffectiveonthefirstdayofthemonthfollowingthe month ofratification. 5.Paymentofthelumpsumpaymentprovidedforherein,andanyretroactivesalary,ifrequiredshallbepaidassoon asreasonablypossibleafterratification." TheUnionsubmittedthattherewasnoexpiessstatementinthisMemorandum thatretroactivitywouldapplytothosepersonswhohadceasedtobeemployeesatthe timeofsigningtheagreementandreliesontheapplicationofthosetermsbytheChair's memoasissuedtotheColleges.Thesegrievancesconcernthefirstinstancewherethe CollegeshaveassertedthatonlythoseemployeesoftheCollegeatthedateofsigningthe colleatlveagreementgainthebenefitofthesalaryscheduleincreaseswhichhavebeen declaredineffectatanearlierdatethanthedateofsigningexceptinspecified circumstances.TheinterpretationoftheCollegesaffectsformeremployeeswhohave quit,retired,diedbetweentheexpirydateoftheformercollectiveagreementandthe signingofthenewagreement.ItalsoadverselyaffectsPartial-Loademployeeshiredon" short-termcontractswithbrokenperiodsofemployment. TheCollegesdonotaccepttheassertionthatpersonswhohadlefttheiremploy priortothesigningofthecollectiveagreementhavebeenpaidrctroaetivityandreferredto theMemorandumofSettlementinJune1992wherethereisdifferentlanguageastothe 8 applicationofretroactivityandaswell,totheMemorandumofSettlementbetweenthe partiesdatedSeptember18,1981whichprovidesthat: "ThesalaryscalesshallbeasetoutinAppendix1hereto andshallbeapplicabletoemployeesontheactivepayroll andintheactiveemployoftheCollegeonSeptember1, 1981..." ItistheColleges'positiontha(throughoutthisperiodretroactiveincreasesto wageshas.sometimesbutnotalwaysbeenpaidandthathistoryshouldnotbeusedinthe interpretationofthecurrentbargainingprocess.ItisthepositionoftheCollegethatonly personswhoarecoveredbythecollectiveagreementontheeffectivedateofsigningthat agreementcangainthebenefitsofthetermsofthecollectiveagreementwhichiseffective atandfromApril21,2004whenthatagreementwassignedbytheparties.Referencewas madetoSection45(b)oftheCollegesCollectiveBargainingActwhichmandatestheterm eracollectiveagreementinwhichitmustbestatedthat: "ItiseffectiveonandafterthefirstdayofSeptemberinthe yearwhichitistocomeintooperation." ItisthesubmissionfortheUnionthatthepayscalesincorporatedintothenew collectiveagreementgovernandonitsfacethoseschedulesmaketherateseffective September1,2003whicharethewageratesthatalltheemployeesareentitledtobepaid fromthatdate.Theemployeesunderstandthatthereisaperiodoftimefornegotiations fromtheexpiryofthepreviouscollectiveagreementandthatwhattheymaybepaidatthe expirydatemaybechangedthroughsuchnegotiationssothatthenewwageratesshould applytoeveryemployeewhohasbeenatworkduringtheeffectiveperiod. .'taccetthei-ebutableIn itssubmission,thestateofthecurrentlawIsop presumptionwhichfavourstheinclusionoftheseindividualsforretroactivewage increasesunlessspecificallyotherwiseexcludedfromsuchretroactivepaymentsThereis evidenceinthissetofnegotiations,thatthepartiesintendedthatthesepersonswhohad beenatworkduringtheeffectiveperiodbeincludedforpaymentoftheincreasedrates althoughnothingtothateffectisexpressedinthedocumentsandthisspecificissueof retroactivltywasnotdiscussedbythepartiesduringtheirnegotiationsbutthepresumptlon wasnotrebutted.Itwasfurthersubmittedthat.evenonthebasisoftheresultofthe Canadadecision,therearegroundstofindtheexclusionarypresumptionoughtnottobe appliedinthatinthecontextofthisagreementbytheparties,tiaesepersonswhowere employedontheeffectivedateoftheincreasetowagesshouldbepaidretroactivewage increases. Referencewasmadetothepriordurationclausesintheparties'collective.. agreementswhereretroactivitywaspaidtoal!employeesexceptwhenthecollective agreementsweresignedontimeorpaymentsoflumpsumsweremade.Butwherethere wasretroactivity,theUnionassertsitwaspaidtoalloftheindividualsaffectedbythe settlementandhadwithspecificreferencetothenegotiations'n1992andthe MemorandumofSettlementdatedJune3,1992(Exhibit16)anditsapplicationbythe ChairoftheOntarioCouncilofRegentssetoutinhismemodatedSeptember30,1992 10 (Exhibit15).AllofwhichrebutsthepresumptionexpressedintheAirCanadadecision. IntheMemorandumofSettlementdatedSeptember18,1981,thepartiesspecifically limitedthepaymentofretr0activeincreasestothe"activeemployees"asofSeptember1st asexpresslysetouiinSection2thereof.Section45(b)oftheActprovidesforthetermof acollectiveagreementsetoutabove,tobeonandafterSeptember1aintheyeartoensure continuityandwhilethepartiescanagreethatforcertaincontractprovisionsretroactivity doesnotapply,inthiscollectiveagreement,retroactivewageincreasesarerequiredtobe appliedfromSeptember1,2003,theeffectivedateagreedfortheapplicationofthesalary scheduleswhichapplytoallmembersofthebargainingUnitonandafterthatdatewhoare entitledtothebenefitofthistermofthecollectiveagreementwhichwasspecificallymade effectiveSeptember1,2003. ItwasfurthersubmittedthatPartial-Loademployeessfi6uldreceivefull retroactivityofthesalaryratesastheyworkunderlimitedtermcontractsoftenforone termatatime.Itwouldbeincorrectnottoapplythenewsalaryratestosuchpersons whowerehiredbeforethedateof.signingof.theagreementwhenotherPartialLoad personswhowereworkingoncontractsextendingoversuchdatewouldreceivethe higherretroactiverateswhichisanunfairapplicationof.theagreement.Initssubmission, allPartial-Loademployeesemployedduringtheeffectivedatesoftheagreementshouldbe paidtheapplicablewagesforthesamework. IntheUnion'ssubmission,therehavebeentwodivergentviewsof.theapplication ofretroactivityrepresentedintheAirCanadaandPentictonawardswhichhassincebeen 11 supportedthatthoseinthebargainingunitduringtheoldandsuccessorcollective agreementswouldbenefitfromrevisedmonetaryprovisionsunlesstherewassomereason tobelieveotherwiseandthathasbeenappliedtopersonswhohavelefttheiremployment priortotheconclusionofanewagreement.AstheUnionrepresentsandnegotiatesforall it employeesnthebargalmngumt,thereisastronglegalpresumpttonthaallemployees haveanexpectationforretroactivebenefits.Sothatwherethosepersonswhohaveleft theiremploymenthavenotbeenspecificallyexcluded,theyareentitledtoretroactive benefits.Thereisonlyonepayscalewhichisincorporatedinthecollectiveagreement whtchgovernsandappliesasofSeptember1,2003onthebasisofwhichschedules,all '0 employeesareentttledtbepaidfortheirworkduringtheeffectiveperiod.Thereisno evidencethatinthissetofnegotiationsthatthepartiesintendedtoexcludethesepersons andinthecontextoftheagreement,theseformeremployeesshouldreceiveretroactive wagepayments. Referencewasmadetothefollowingawards:ReAirCanadaandCALFA,1 L.A.C.(3d)37(H.D.Brown);MePentletonandDistrictRetirementServiceandH.ospita[ EmployeesUnion,L.18016L.A.C.(2d)97(P.C.Weiler);ReWilliamNeilsonLimitedand MilkandBredDriversUnion,L.64"16L.A.C.(3d)123(P.C.Picher);:KsVictorianOrder ofNurses,YorkBranchandONA30L.A.C.(4th)277(E.E.Marszewski); andP95L.A.C.(4th)88(R.Brown);ReCanadianAirTrafficControlAssociationv 19852F.C.84;MeKitchener-WaterlooRecordv,Communications, Ener:VandPaperworkersU.nionofCanada.L,87,(2003)O.L.A.A.No.302(G.Brent). 12 ItisthesubmissionfortheCollegesthatonlythoseemployeeswhowereemployed bytheCollegeatthedate!hepartiesenteredintothecollectiveagreementarecoveredby itstermsandwouldbeentitledtoretroactivepaymentpursuanttoArticle36.01ofthe collectiveagreementandSection45oftheAct.Anypersonswhoseemploymentwas terminatedorhadquit,diedorretiredpriortothatdatemustbepaidinaccordancewith. thetermsofthecollectiveagreementonwhichthatemploymentwasseveredfor.whatever reason.BytheoperationoftheAct,thecollectiveagreementcomesintooperationin 2004sothatitisonlythoseemployeeswhoareemployedatthetimethattheagreement wasenteredintowhoareentitledtobepaidinaccordancewithitsterms.The effectivenessofArticle36.01isnotlimitedbutappliesOnthedateofsigningofthe agreementtotheemployeesoftheCollegesasatthatdate. BySection54.1oftheAct,itisprovidedwhereapartytoacollectiveagreement hasgivennoticetotheotherpartyofnegotiation,"thetermsandprovisionsofthe agreementtheninoperationshallcontinuetooperate".Therefore,thosepersonswho wereemployedfromAugust31,2003untilthepartiesenteredintothecollective agreementweregovernedbythetermsandconditionsoftheexpiredcollectiveagreement andthosepersonswhohadlefttheiremploymentinthatperiodwerenotsubjecttoany otherterms.InArticle1.01.theUnionisrecognizedasthebargainingagentforall "academicemployeesoftheColleges"..,sothatuponleavingtheiremployment,those personsarenolongerpartofthebargainingunitandarenotrequiredtopayUniondues andtheUniondoesnothavetherighttobargainontheirbehalf.Fromthat,itwas 13 'i submittedthatonlypersonsemployedatthetimethenewcollecttveagreementsentered intoarecoveredandboundbythetermsoftha}agreementandgainthebenefitsfromthe agreementwhichappliesonlytOthosepersonsthenemployed. ReferencewasmadetoSection1oftheActwhichdefinesanemployeeas meanin'g"apersonemployedbyaBoardofGovernorsfortheCollegesofAppliedArts andTechnology..."whichdoesnotincludeformeremployees.Aswell,thecollective agreementmustbeappliedtoemployeesatthetimewhenbenefitswereconferredas specifiedinthecollectiveagreement.Exclusionsfromthe.agreementsuchasSessional Employees,aredealtwithseparatelyinAppendixVunderwhichrightsunderthe collectiveagreementcanbegainedforthosepersonsbutotherwisethosepersonshotin thebargainingunitarenotcovered.Further,referencesweremadetoSections59(e) allowingemployeesinthebargainingunittovotewithregardtoastrikeandtoSection88 referringtoavoteofemployeestogiveapprovaltothetermsofanagreementwherean employeeorganizationconductsavotewhichtermsdonotincludeformeremployees. o IftheartiesintendedtoprovidepaymenttothosewhowerenotemployedattheP timeofenteringintothecollecttveagreementsuchatermwouldhavebeenreqmredtob includedandspecifiedintheagreementwhichwasnotdone.TheArbitratorisrestricted bythetermsofArticle32.04(d)fromaltenngoramend'nganytermsofthecollective "d agreementwhicharticlewouldbebreachedtftheArbitratoradderightstopersons outsideofthebargainingunitwhenthecollectiveagreementwasenteredinto.Thatisnot 14 arebutablepresumptionbutisaqestionoftheinterpretationofthecollectiveagreement andtheobligationoftheCollegesunderthatagreement,thefundamentalcontract principlescannotbeignored.Apersonwhoisnotamemberofthebargainingunitisnot subjecttothecontroloftheUnionortheCollegesforeithertheapplicationofa detrimentalclauseorthebenefitscontainedinthenewagreement.Thereisnotan expectationoftheapplicationofretroactivityasarightandthepropositionthatevery person.whetheremployedatthetimeornotissoentitled,isnotlogicalintheprocessof contractbargaininginwhichtheemployeesinthebargainingunithavearighttovoteand ratifytheagreement.Formeremployeeswouldhavenosuchrightandthereforedonot havealegalentitlementtothebenefitsofthenewcollectiveagreement. ItissubmittedthattheresultoftheAirCana.d_award(supra)shouldinthese circumstancesbeappliedbythe.Arbitratortofindthatifthepartieshadintendedtobenefit formeremployees,itwouldrequireaspecificprovisionintheiragreementtothateffect. Intheabsenceofsuchaterm,thewagescalesapplyonlytoemployeesatthedateof signingtilecollectiveagreement.Theeffectivedateofacollectiveagreementandwhois coveredbyitstermsareseparateissuesandonlytakeseffect"commenelngonthedateof signing"setoutinArticle36.01anddoesnot,likeothercases,extendbacktotheexpiry dateoftheprioragreement.Referencewasmadetothefollowingawards: ClerksUnion,L.409andChapplesStoresLimited17L.A.C.436(Hanr'ahin);ReSEU L.204andTorontoHospitalfortheTreatmentofTuberculosls22L.A.C.119(H.D. Brown);ReMelehinAutoTransportLimitedandMiscellaneousWorkers,Wholesaleand RetailDeliveryDriversandHelpersL.3516L.A.C.(2d)333(Deverell);ReOttawa 15 BoardofEducationandOSSTFDistrict26_13L.A.C,2d(46)(Ferguson).Itissubmitted thattheArbitratorshouldfindthatonlytheemployeesoftheCollegesemployedatthe dateofsigningthecollectiveagreementareentitledtothebenefitsandcoveredbythose provisionsinthecollectiveagreement." AsIhavereferredtotheaward(supra)inmydecisioninReAirCanada, Iwillnotnowfurtherreviewthedifferencesinthoseeaseswhichhavebeenusedto illustrateopposingarbitralopinionsontheapplicationofretroactivityfollowinga settlementofacollectiveagreement.WhatisnotindisputeistheArbitrator's responsibilitytointerpretandapplythetermsinthelanguageofthepartiesinthe collectiveagreemententeredintobythem.Inthepresentease,thepartiesdealtwith retroactlvityinArticle36,01butdidnotdiscussduringtheirnegotiationswhetherpersons wfiohadlefttheiremploymentbetweentheexpirydateofthepriorcollectiveagreement andthedateofsigningthenewcollectiveagreementwouldreceivetheincreasetothe salaryschedulessetoutinArticles14and26whichweremade,"effectiveSeptember1, 2003"noristhereanytermcontainedinthecollectiveagreementtothateffect. AsindicatedinthesubmissionsofCounselinthismatter,therehavebeen considerableconclusionsbyvariousarbitratorsovertheyearsinwhichthesameissuehas arisenalthoughindifferingcircumstances.Thereremainsadistinctdlffel:enceinthe considerationgiventopracticalindustrialrelationprinciplesinthenegotiationand conclusionofcollectiveagreementsandtheintendedapplicationofbenefitscontainedin suchagreements.Iriessence,thatisthepartiesrecordinwritingtheircollective 16 agreementinwhichtheirintentastotheapplicationofthemutualcontt:actualobligations areexpressedinthelanguageofthepartieswhichofcourseissubjecttointerpretationand applicationbyanarbitrg_torassetoutinArticle34.01ofthiscollectiveagreement.The Arbitratorisnotauthorizedhowever,tovarytheagreementofthepartiesbychangingor addingtothetermsoftheagreement.Superimposedonthebasicunderpinningsof collectiveagreementnegotiationsarelegislatedrequirementsaffectingtheparties. Article45oftheCollegesCollectiveBargainingActstatesthat: "Everyagreementshall-(b)statethatitiseffectiveonand afterthefirstdayofSeptemberintheyearinwhichitcomes intooperation." ThedefinitionsectionoftheActprovidesthat: '"Employee"meanapersonemployedbyaBoardof GovernorsofaCollegeofAppliedArtsandTechnologyin apositionorclassificationthatiswithintheAcademicStaff BargainingUnitortheSupportStaffBargalningUnitset outinSchedules1and2." Section54(1)provides: "Wherenoticehasbeengivenbyeitherpartytoan agreementunderSection4,exceptasalteredbyan agreementinwritingbytheparties,thetermsandprovisions oftheagreementtheninoperationshallcontinuetooperate untilthereisarighttostrikeorlockoutasprovidedinthis Act." 17 Article36.01isclearastotheeffectivedateofthecollectiveagreement commencingonthedateofsigningwithretroactivityspecifiedonlyforthesalary schedulesinArticles14and26.WhiletheUniondoesnotrepresentpersonswhoarenot inthebargainingunitwhenthecollectiveagreementwassigned,ilaepartiesintheir negotiationscouldhaveprovidedbenefitstoformeremployeeswhowereemployedandin thebargainingunitonandaftertheexpiryoftheformercollectiveagreementbutfor whateerreasonswerenotemployedwhenthecurrentcollectiveagreementwasentered into.Whenhowever,thatbenefitisnotspecifiedintheagreementwhichinArticle36.01 refersonlytoretroactiveapplicationofthewageschedules,theissueofthesegrievances iswhatobligationdotheCollegeshavetopaytheincreasedwagescalestopersonswho werenotempioyedatthetimeofsigningthecollectiveagreementwhenitbecame effectiveonApril21,2004. 't Wherethepartiestoacollectiveagreementhavenotclearlyspecifiedthaformer s employeeswouldbeentitledtoaproratashareofwageincreasesretroaettvely,thecase whichingeneralfollowtheapproachapplyapresumptionthattheintentionof thepartieswastobenefitsuchformeremployeesunlessotherwiserestrictedbythe._ agreement.Myconclusiononthisissuewhichwassetoutintheawardisthe oppositethatthepartiesmustspecificallyincludeformeremployeesintheapplicationofa prorataretroactivewageincreasesofsuchresultwasintendedbythem.Whichever approachistaken,anarbitratorIrequiredtointerpretandapplythelanguageofthe partiesintheircollectiveagreementaswellasapplicabletermsofthelegislationin determiningtheissue.Inthatregard,inmyviewofthecircumstancesinthismatter,the 18 sectionsoftheActrefinedtoaboveconfinetheapplicatlonofretroactivityunderArticle 36.01toemployeesasdefinedinSection1thereofwhomustthereforebeaperson employedbytheCollege"withintheAcademicStaffBargainingUnit".Formeremployees andPartial-LoademployeeswhohavelefttheiremploymentwiththeCollegesfollowing theexpirydateofthepreviouscollectiveagreementandbeforethenewcollective agreementwasenteredintoarenotrepresentedbytheUnionatthattimebecausetheyare notmployeesinthebargainingunitwhenthecollectiveagreementwasenteredinto.Itis myopinionthatrightsofsuchpersonsarelimitedbytheapplicationofSection54.1which continuestheapplicationofthetermsandconditionsoftheexpiredcoliectiveagreement tothoseformeremployeesandarecorrectlypaidunderthosetermsofemploymentor Partial-Loadcontracts. PersonswhowerehiredafterSeptember1,2003andbeforethenewcolleetiye agreementtookeffectaresubjecttothesametermsoftheexpiredeoileetiveagreementas otheremployeesasthosetermscontinueuntilchangcctwhenthenewcollectiveagreement isenteredintobytheparties.ThOsepersonsbeinginthebargainingunitatthattimeare thenentitledtotheretroactivewageincreasesinthesalaryschedulespursuanttoArticle 36.01inthesamemannerasanyotheremployeeinthebargainingunitonthedatethe collectiveagreementwasenteredinto.Personswhowerenotinthebargainingunitatthat datehowever,arenotemployeesasdefinedintheActandhavenoriglathereforeto benefitfromthetermsofthenewcollectiveagreementabsentclearlyexpressed languagetoapplytheretroactiveincreasesinthewageschedulesreferredinArticle36.01 toallemployeesinthebargainingunitasofSeptemberI,2003.Thefactthatthesalary 19 schedulesweremadeeffectiveasofthatdateisnotasufficientdirectionofthepartiesto concludethattheyintendedtocreateabenefitunderthetermsofthiscollectiveagreement tobeappliedtopersonsnot!nthebargainingunitwhentheagreementwassigned.Ifind thattheretroactiveeffect0ftheWageschedulesinArticle36.01wasintendedtoapplyto employeesinthebargainingunitasofthedateofenteringintothecollectiveagreement whichisconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheAct. IntheCanadianAirTrafficControlcase(supra),theCourtwasconcernedwith theapplicationofthePublicServiceStaffRelationsActwheretheMajorityconcluded"In thelightoftheentiresystemoftheAot,thattheGrieverswereentitledtoreceivethe benefitsoftheagreementwhetherornottheywerememberswhenitwassigned." MaurceauJ,inhisdecisionstatedthat: "Theissuecannotberesolvedinthepublicsectoronthesame termsasintheprivatesector" andatpage12,hewrote: 20 "ThereisnothingtopreventabargainingUnionfromtrying tohaveanadvantagenegotiatedformembersofits bargainingunitextendedtoothersforexample;former employeesasthereisnothinginprincipletoprohibitan employerfromassuringincontractingwiththeUnionan obligationforthebenefitofotheis,thanmembersofthe bargainlngunit.Onemayeasilyundei'standthatthe considerationoftheissueweareconcernedwithhasalways resolvedintheprivatesectoraroundnotionsof representationofagency,ofprivityofcontractandhasbeen seenasbringlngintoplay,malnlytherolesofconstruction ofagreements." TheJudgefoundthatformeremployeeswereentitledtoreceiveadditionalsalary paymentsonthenewwagerateshavingregardtotheschemeofthatlegislationand opinedthat "Theconceptofrepresentationasdevelopedinthecommon lawshouldbeleftouthereandtheimplementationofa doublesetofratesforthesamepositionisimpossiblein principle." Inthatregard,theapplicationoftheprinciplesinthelawofcontractwerereferred andappliedbyArbitratorFergusoninReOttawaBoardofEducationaward(supra)and followingtheTorontoHospitalandChappelsawardsstated 21 "Basedonourconclusionsoftheproperapplicationofcontract lawasitrelatestonegotiationsandthesigningofacollective agreement,theBoardfoundthatateacherwhoceased tobeemployedwhenthecollectiveagreementwassignedwas notentitledtoretroactivesalaryincreases.TheBoard alsodealtwith-thedecisionofRoach,J.whode,ltwithaninterestdisputeunderthePoliceActontheterms ofwhichheheavilyrelied.Ibelievethereforethatthecasehas arestrictedapplicationandalittlegenerai weightonthisissue. Atp.51,theBoardstated: "Itisourconclusionthatthepropositionadvancedbytheteachers iscontrarytothebasleprinciplesofcontractlawbysuggesting thatapersonwouldbeboundbyanyobligations imposedbyanagreementalthoughthatpersonwas notanemployeeatthetimetheagreementwasenteredinto.Wecannotsupportthepropositionthatanagreementcan provideabenefitorimposeanobhgationuponanypersonwhois clearlyastrangertotheagreementatthetimeitis signed.Onemustnotconfusethequestionoftheduration oftheagreementwiththeentirelyseparatequestion astowhowasprivytotheagreement.Theduration clauseoftheagreementmayinfactrendertheagreementfor thepurposesofcertainmonetaryitemstoberetroactive,butthismustbeseparatedfromthequestionofwho isboundorentitledtothebenefitsoftheagreement whateverbeitsduration..." Therehavebeenanumberofmorerecentawardsdealingwiththesameissueon theapplicationofretroactivityinthecircumstancesofthegnevaneesinvolvedinthose matters.ArbitratorBrenthasmostrecentlyreferredtoandcarefullyanalyzedtherelevant awardsandatpara.24remarked: 22 "Thosethenarethetwocompetingschoolsofthought.On theonehandthereistheviewwhichpurportstorestits caseoncontractlawandconceptssuchasprivityof contractandsaysthatthereisapresumptionthatduration clausesshouldbeassumednottoincludethoseemployees wholeftaftertheexpiryoftheoldcollectiveagreementbut priortothefinalizationofitssuccessor.Thatschoolof thoughtwouldlookforpreciseandspecificlanguageto includethoseformeremployeesinanyretroactive application.Ontheotherhand,thereistheviewwhich takesabroaderlookatthepolicyissuesandthe g****circumstancesofcollectivebargainingandconcludesthatJt ismorereasonabletoresumethatthepartiesintendedto includethoseformeremployeesinthedurationclauseat leastinsofarasmonetarybenefitsareconcerned.That schoolwouldlooknotonlyforaspecificlanguage excludingthoseformeremployeestorebutthat presumption,butwouldlookalsoatextrinsicevidenceto determineiftherewasaclearevidenceeramutualintention toexcludethosepeople." Thearbitratorconcludedatpara.37: "Itismyviewthatdespitethetwoschoolsofthought regardingretroactivitypayabletoformeremployees,the prevailingtrendinthearbitraljurispnadenceistoacceptthe Pentictonapproach.Whilethereareobviousmeritstoboth approaches,Pentictor!isperhapsmorepersuasivebecauseit recognizesthatcollectiveagreementsarenotisolated contractsbutgovernon-goingrelationshipswhere employerscontinuetooperateandemployeescontinueto provideservicesduringprotractednegotiations.Itherefore findthatthemorereasonableapproachtotakewhen lookingatthecollectiveagreementapartfromanyextrinsic evidenceistointerpretitasincludingallformeremployees wholeftaftertheexpiryoftheformeragreementbutprior totheratificationofthenewagreementwithinthescopeof itsretroactiveapplicationunlessthecontraryisclearly indicated.Thatis,asaprincipleofinterpretation,inclusion willbepresumedunlessthecontraryisclearlyindicated." 23 Whatisclearfromthesedecisionsisthatthelanguageof,thecollectiveagreement mustbeinterpretedtodealwiththisissuetowhichIwouldaddinthecircumstancesof thepresentmatter,theapplicationof'ihetermsoftheActreferredtoabove,cannotbe ignoredintheApplicationof'Article36.01havingregardtothedefinitionof,employeein Section1oftheAct.Totheref,oreincludebenefitstobeextendedtoothersthan employeesasdefinedtoincludeformeremployeesof,theCollegescannotbeextendedby ref,ereneeonlytotheretroactiveeffectivedateofwagescalesinArticles14and26.Byso doing,thepartieshavenotexpresslyextendedthatbenefittoanyoneotherthanemployees of,theCollegesinthebargainingunitwhenthecollectiveagreementwasenteredinto. Thepartieshavenotinthiscollectiveagreemeniexpresslybenefitedanyoneotherthanthe employeesoftheCollegesinthebargainingunitonthedateof,signingtheagreement.It isonlythereforethoseemployeeswhoareentitledtotheincreasedwageratesin.thesalary scheduleseffectiveSeptember1,2003. Thepartiesdidnotincludeotherpersonsanditisadmitted,thattherewasno discussionof.thepartiesduringtheirnegotiationstoextendtheincreasedwageratesin. thosescaleswhichbecameeffectiveonSeptember1,2003onaproratabasistobepaid tothosepersonswhowereemployedasofSeptember1,2003buthadlefttheir employmentortheireontractswereendedbeforethecollectiveagreementwassigned. Thepartieshaveforotherpurposesincludedexpresslanguagetobenefitpersonsnotin thebargainingunit atthetimetheagreementwasenteredintosuchasSessional employeeswhowhileexcludedfromthebargainingunitaregiventhebenefitof' 24 completionofpartoftheirprobationshouldtheiremploymentexceedthetimesetin Section2andare"thereaftercoveredbyotherprovisionsoftheagreement".Ialsohave hadreferencetotheMemorandumofSettlementdatedSeptember18,1981whichmade thesalaryschedulesapplicableto"employeesontheactivepayrolloftheCollegeon September1,1981"andincludedtheestateofdeceasedemployeesforsalaryadjustments. IncreasesforPartial-LoademployeeswerespecificallyprovidedinAppendix2ofthe MemorandumtoincludethoseemployeduptoAugust31'tandfollowingSeptember1st. Icannotconcludefromthehistoryofthebargainingbetweenthosepartiesthat thereisaconsistentthoughtacitunderstandingthatretroactivityofwageincreaseswould beappliedtoallemployeesasoftheexpirydateoftheformercollectiveagreementand findthatsuchintentisnotsupportedbythetermsofArticle36.01toapplythesalary schedulestoemployeesotherthanasdefinedbytheActwhichbindstheseparties.In considerationofallofthesecircumstances,aninferencecannotbeassumedthattheparties intendedtobenefitformeremployeesbyretroactivewageincreases. ArbitratorBrentreferredtopolicyissuesandinferencestobedrawnfromthe parties'collectivebargainingexperiencewhichmayinsomecaseswherethereis substantialextrinsicevidencebesignificant.Aswellhowever,theretroactivityissuemust alsobeconsideredhavingregardtotheapplicablelegislationbindingthe13arties.Inmy opinion,tocomplywiththetermsoftheAct,thesepartiesmustbepreciseandclearasto theirintentionsthroughbargainingforthecurrentcollectiveagreementwherebyan inferenceastotheirintenttobenefitformeremployeescannotbefoundaspolicyofthe 25 Collegeshavingregardtooneapplicationofretroactlvityinthecircumstancesof1992 whentherearedifferingcontextsinotherco!leetiveagreementswithspecificreferencesto activeemployeesandemployeesatthetimeofsigningtheagreement.Theparties' negotiationsovertheyearsoftheirbargaininghaveresultedtherebywithvarying applicationsofretroactivewageincreases.Thesubstanceofthatevidencedoesnot supportartinferencethatthepartiesintendedthelanguageofArticle36.01toincludethe paymentofretroactivewageincreasestoformerFull-Timeorpartial-Loademployees. 'e Partial-Loademployeeshavebeencorrectlypaidatthewagratesineffectwhen theircontractswereenteredintoorwhentheywereemployedasfull-timeemployeesby theapplicationofthewagescaleseffectiveintheexpiredcollectiveagreement.Ifindthat ".g Partial-Loademployeeswouldhavenoclaimforanadjustmenttotheircontractratesif theywerenolongeremployedasaPartial-LoadProfessorwhenthenewcollective agreementwasenteredintounlessthetermsoftheiremploymentcontractprovidedfor "in suchanadjustment.Thereisnoprovlsomadebythepartiesinthiscollectiveagreement toprovideabenefittoincreasetheemploymentcontractratesofformerPartial-Load.. employeesretroactivetothedateoftheexpiredsuccessorcollectiveagreementsothatthe wageratewhichappliedwhenthePartlal-Loademployeewasengagedcontinuesineffect untiltheendofthatcontractwhenthetremploymentwiththeCollegeceases. 26 Forallofthesereasons,IfindthattheCollegeswerenotinbreachofthecollective agreementasallegedbytheUnionbyfailingtopayretroaetlvewageincreasesunderthe salaryschedulesinArticles14and26topersonswhowerenotemployeesandnotinthe bargainingunitwhenthecollectiveagreementwasenteredintoandsignedonApril21, 2004.ItfollowsthatthegrievancesmustbedismissedandIsoaward. DATEDATOAKVILLETHIS5THDAYOFOCTOBER,2004 HowardD.Brown,Arbitrator