HomeMy WebLinkAboutElrodesly 24-06-05 1
In the Matter of a Workload Resolution Arbitration
Under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008
BETWEEN:
SENECA COLLEGE
(the “College”)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, LOCAL 560
(the “Union”)
(Individual Workload Complaint of Ahmed Elrodesly)
AWARD
Paula Knopf – Arbitrator
Appearances:
For the College: For the Union:
George Vuicic, Counsel Dr. Anna Ainsworth
Sarah Arliss Dr. Siobhan Bell
Jodi Smith Dr. Jonathan Singer
Maureen Huckins Dr. Ahmed Elrodesly
Rupy Lehal
The hearing of this matter was conducted by way of Video Conference on May 23, 2024
This Award addresses a workload dispute conducted under my authority as a Workload
Resolution Arbitrator (WRA) pursuant to Article 11 of the Parties’ Collective Agreement.
The dispute between the Parties focused on two issues:
1. The vacation period allotted to the Grievor in the Summer of 2024.
2. The PD time accorded to the Grievor in the 2023-2024 Academic Year.
Pursuant to Article 11.02 F5, this hearing was conducted by me engaging in
discussions, hearing the submissions of the Parties and listening to the Grievor’s
2
clarifications and explanations for the filing of his Workload complaints. I also had the
benefit of the extensive documentation, correspondence and arbitral decisions filed by
both Parties prior to the hearing. Taken together, the fulsome set of materials, the
discussions and submissions revealed that there is no factual dispute between the
Parties.
Accordingly, pursuant to Article 11.02 F6 I indicated to the Parties that I was in a
position to issue an Award that could address the substance of the two aspects of the
Workload Dispute.
It must be noted at the outset that a great deal of the materials filed on behalf of the
Grievor raised issues concerning course curriculum, content, academic freedom and
methodology. They reveal the Grievor’s firm commitment to academic excellence.
However, they are not relevant to the Workload issues that arise from the facts of this
case, nor are they within the jurisdiction of a Workload Resolution Arbitrator.
Accordingly, they shall not be commented upon in this Award.
Issue 1 –The vacation period allotted to the Grievor in the Summer of 2024
The Grievor alleges that his vacation ought to have been scheduled during the months
of July and August of 2024. Instead, he was allotted May and June of 2024 as vacation
time. He has requested that the College be ordered to grant him his requested vacation
time.
The main basis of the Grievor’s complaint is that he is a Party of a Memorandum of
Settlement dated October 15, 2018 that provided:
. . . the Chair, School of Aviation shall only schedule the Grievor in one or both of
the months of July and August on either a consent or rotational basis. The
College will notify the Grievor of his vacation period at least four weeks prior to
the commencement of the vacation period concerned.
3
Further, the Grievor relies on the fact that for some time prior to the events giving rise to
this grievance, his extensive seniority resulted in him being granted his choice of
vacation times by the Chair of the School of Aviation.
However, the situation changed while the Grievor was on medical leave in 2021-2022.
He was unaware that the new Chair of the School of Aviation had implemented a
rotational vacation schedule, commencing January of 2022. Upon his return from his
leave, the Grievor was not informed expressly of the change. As a consequence, he
was upset and surprised that his extensive seniority did not result in him being
scheduled for his requested vacation time in 2024. The Grievor said this disrupted his
family’s plans and may have triggered additional costs for hotel, airline and travel fees.
The College has acknowledged that it is very unfortunate that there was a lack of clear
communication to the Grievor about the implementation of the vacation rotation regime
in January of 2022. It is also apparent that the new system came as a surprise to the
Grievor and affected him and his family.
On the other hand, the documentary evidence discloses that the Summer 2024 SWF
should have made it abundantly clear to the Grievor that he was scheduled to teach in
July and August of 2024, with no scheduled duties in May and June. Accordingly, the
months of May and June were plainly designated as vacation months. It is also clear
from the materials that the Summer 2024 SWF was issued to the Grievor in a timely
fashion and more than six weeks in advance of his vacation. Further, an email dated
March 19, 2024 indicated to the Grievor that he was scheduled to teach in July and
August, 2024. Therefore, the Grievor had more than six weeks’ notice of the fact that
his vacation period would be May and June in 2024.
Article 11.03 of the Collective Agreement permits the College to schedule the month(s)
of vacation in one or both months of July and August “on a consent or rotational basis”
(emphasis added). The School of Aviation has implemented a “rotational basis” that did
not activate the Grievor’s turn for a July-August vacation in 2024.
4
As a result, the scheduling of the Grievor’s vacation in the Spring/Summer of 2024 is
consistent with Article 11.03 and with the October 2018 MOS, in terms of both its notice
to the Grievor and its timing. Therefore, I must conclude that there has been no
violation of Article 11 and this aspect of the Grievance is dismissed.
However, I have noted that the materials filed before me indicate that the rotation
schedule for the Summer of 2025 places the Grievor’s vacation in his chosen period of
July – August of 2025. I also acknowledge and applaud the College’s undertaking to
publish the rotation schedule in the future so that all faculty members will be made well
aware, in advance, where they stand in the rotation roster. This will afford greater
transparency and fairness and allows faculty members and their families to plan their
vacations far in advance.
Issue 2 – The PD time accorded to the Grievor in the 2023-2024 Academic Year.
The Grievor had anticipated using the five days of Reading Week in the Winter
semester to mark his students’ assignments and for his own PD. However, an
Academic Staff meeting was scheduled during that week. The Grievor asserted that he
spent considerable time leading up to the meeting preparing to raise several academic
issues that he wanted the School to address. However, on short notice the meeting
was cancelled.
As a result, the Grievor feels that he has been denied his full entitlement to the
Collective Agreement’s promise of 10 PD days. He also objects to the fact that the
College designates Reading Weeks as PD day. His requested remedy is that the
College be ordered to grant him 10 PD days in this academic year.
It must be noted that the Union also questions the propriety of the College scheduling
PD days during “reading week” in each semester. However, the question of whether
5
PD days can be scheduled during reading weeks does not fall within the jurisdiction of
the WRA and shall not be addressed further.
The College responded to the Grievor’s complaint by pointing to his SWF indicating that
the Grievor was allotted 10 PD days in accordance with Article 11.01 H1. Further, it was
stressed that the attendance at the Academic Staff meeting was voluntary, meaning that
there was no requirement for the Grievor to attend or take time out of his allotted PD
time that week. It was also pointed out that the cancellation of the meeting meant that
he lost none of his allotted PD time.
The documentation before me indicates that the Grievor was allotted 10 PD days in the
2023-2024 Academic Year. Article 11.01 H1 simply prescribes, “The College shall allow
each teacher at least ten working days of professional development in each academic
year”. Those 10 days were allotted on the Grievor’s SWFs. Therefore, I can find no
violation of the Collective Agreement.
However, I have sympathy for the Grievor having spent so much of his allotted PD time
preparing for an Academic Staff meeting that was cancelled on short notice. Therefore,
I urge the College to give the Grievor an additional day for Professional Development
within this academic year to make up for the disappointment and disruption that he
experienced.
I note the materials before me indicate that the Grievor is scheduled for his PD Leave
rotation in May and June of 2025. One hopes that this will also provide him a good
opportunity to pursue his academic interests further.
I shall remain seized with implementation.
6
I thank the advocates for providing me with the materials in advance of this hearing and
for the excellence and clarity of their presentations. This enabled the Parties to have an
efficient and effective hearing.
Dated at Toronto this 5th day of June 2024.
_______________________
Paula Knopf - Arbitrator