Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Caron 97-02-10
ARBITRATIONOFAGRIEVANCE BETWEEN LAClTECOLLC:GIALE (theCollege) THEONTARIOPUBLICSERVICE EMPLOYEESUNION (theUnion) GAETANNECARONGRIEVANCE -and BOARDOFARBITRATION: MichelG.Picher C.G.Masse R.St-Onge Chairman Union-appointedMember Employer-appointedMember REPRESENTINGTHEUNION: PascaleSonya-Roy DanielleGravel -Attorney -Representative REPRESENTINGTHECOLLEGE: Andr6Champagne DianeVaillancourt -Attorney -AcademicDirector HearingheldinOttawaonMarch6,October3andNovember29,1996andJanuary 26,19 ARBITRATIONAWARD InthisgrievancefiledonJune15,1995,theUnionclaimsthattheCollegehasviolatedthe provisionsoftheCollectiveAgreementindismissingtheGriever,Mrs.GatanneCaron,without validcauseandinrefusingtoacknowledgeherasapermanentemployeeandmemberofthe bargainingunit.TheCollegemaintainsthatMrs.Caronhasalwaysworkedasacontract employeeandthatshewasthereforeexcludedfromthebargainingunitwhenhercontractasan officeworkerattheHawkesburyCampuscametoanendonJune2,1995.TheUnionpetitions theBoardofArbitrationtofindthatMrs.Caronwasapermanentemployeewithseniorityatthat timeandtoorderthatshebegrantedtherighttothepositionwarrantedbyherseniorityinthe eventthatbumpingorrecallrightswereapplicable,andthatshebeawardeddamagesforlossof salaryandbenefitscausedbyherdismissal,amatterwhichshouldremainbeforetheBoard. TheevidenceshowsthatMrs.Caronwaswithoutdisputehiredasacontractemployeein theofficesoftheCollege'sHawkesburyCampusonFebruary23,1991,andthatherfirstdayat lh''•workwasFebruary25.Herlmtlalcontractstatesthatthereasonforheremploymentwasto replaceMrs.GuylaineLaroche,whohadbeenassignedtothepositionofRecruitingOfficer. Accordingtothecontract,Mrs.Caronthenworked35hoursperweekforaperiodoffiveweeks. Thiswasfollowedbyaseriesoffourconsecutivecontractsattilesamenumberofhoursperweek untilMay31,1991.ThefinaltwocontractsdescribeherworkasbackuptoSupportStafffor reasonsofincreasedworkload. Followingasummerlayoff,Mrs.CaronwasrehiredonacontractbasisonAugust20, 1991towork24hoursperweekendingDecember201991.Therethenfollowedthree consecutivecontractsthroughtoJune19,1992,respectivelyat24,30and28hoursperweek. Afteranothersummerlayoff,shereturnedoncontractonAugust17,1992towork24hoursper weekendingSeptember11,1992. Mrs.Caronthenbeganaseriesof19employmentcontractsat35hoursperweekinan uninterruptedsequence,withtheexceptionofoneweekofleaveovertheChristmasholidaysin 1993and1994,untilheremploymentcametoanendonJune2,1995.Thus,forallpractical purposes,theGrieverwasassignedtheworkinghoursofapermanentemployeeforacontinuous periodofalmostthreeyears,ormorepreciselytwoyearsandninemonths. ThesectionsoftheCollectiveAgreementthatarerelevanttothesettlementofthis grievanceread,inpart,asfollows: 1.1EXCLUSIVEBARGAININGAGENT TheUnionisrecognizedastheexclusivebargainingagentforallSupportStaff employeesoftheColleges,saveandexcept: personsregularlyemployedfortwenty-four(24)hoursperweekorlessand personsemployedtemporarilyduringtheCollegevacationperiods; -personshiredforaprojectofanon-recurringkind. 14.1PROBATIONARYPERIOD Anemployeewillbeonprobationuntilhe/shehascompletedsix(6)monthsof employmentwiththeCollegeinanytwelve(12)monthperiod.Atthediscretion oftheCollege,theprobationaryperiodmaybereducedforanindividualemployee tosuchperiodoftimeastheCollegemaydetermine.Onsuccessfulcompletionof theprobationaryperiod,he/sheshallthenbecreditedwithseniorityequaltothe probationaryperiodserved,andsenioritythusacquiredshallbeappliedinthe mannersetoutinthisArticle. APPENDIXD TEMPORARYEMPLOYEES 1.ThetermsofthisAppendixapplytopersonsemployedonacasualor temporarybasistoreplacebargainingunitemployeesabsentduetovacation, sickleaveorleaveofabsence.NootherprovisionoftheCollectiveAgreement shallapplytosuchpersonsunlessotherwisestatedinthisAppendix. 2.Theratetobepaidtosuchanemployeeshallbetheappropriaterateapplicable totheclassificationofthereplacedemployee,subjecttoprogressionsteps applicabletothereplacingemployee,whereappropriate. 3.Thereplacingemployeeshallbesubjecttothedeductionandremittanceof UnionduesasprovidedinArticle5.4oftheAgreement. Inordertoperformanadequateanalysisofthefacts,thetasksperformedbyMrs.Caron duringtheperiodofheremploymentmustbeascertained,aswellastheemployeestatusassigned toherbytheCollegefromperiodtoperiodafterSeptember14,1992.Fromthatdateto December4th,theGrievor'scontractsdescribeheras"ClerkTypist,Reception/Curriculum Support."ThecontractbeginningDecember7,1992bearsthedescription"OfficeWorker, ReplacingGuylaineLaroche."Infact,itisnotindisputethatMrs.Caronsuccessfullyappliedto fillthepositionleftbyGuylaineLarochefollowingapostingdescribingthepositionas"Office '2,1 Worker,AppendixD."Actually,aletterwrittentoMrs.CarononDecember1--2,1992byMrs. ChristineRainville,thenDireetorofHumanResources,readsinpartasfollows: DearMadam: FurthertoyourapplicationunderCompetitionNo.CO-09208-172,onbehalfofLa Citcoll6giale,IampleasedtoofferyouthecontractpositionofOfficeClerk, LevelSeven(7),locatedinHawkesbury.Sinceyouarereplacingamemberofthe bargainingunit,youwillbesubjecttoAppendixDoftheSupportStaffCollective Agreement. YourdutieswillbeginonDecember7,1992andendonMarch26,1993.Thesalary sealeforthispositionrangesfrom$14.48to$16.03perhourandyourrateofpay uponappointmentwillbe$14.86perhour.Yournormalworkweekisthirty-five (35)hours.YouhavebeenassignedIDnumber50-55604. Youwillbepaideverytwoweeks,bychequeforthefirstpayandthenbydirect deposit.Forthispurpose,youwillberequiredtoprovideachequespecimenwith yourcontractorsendittotheFinanceDivisiontotheattentionofMr.Guy Bordeleau(787-2169),RoomA303.Themandatorydeductionslistedasfollows willbemadeonanongoingbasisfromyourgrosssalary:incometax,Canada PensionPlan,employmentinsuranceanduniondues(AppendixD).These deductionsareaconditionofemployment. Mrs.Caron'scontractsfromDecember7,1992toDecember24,1993describethe GrievorasreplacementforGuylaineLaroche.However,accordingtoaletteraddressedtoMr. RolandDesforges,AcademicDirectorattheHawkesburyCampus,anddatedSeptember9th,Mrs. Laroehe,whountilthenhadbeenonleaveofabsencewithoutpay,tenderedherresignation.Asa result,fromJanuary3,1994totheendofheremploymentoilJune2,1995,Mrs.Caron's contractsshowheras"Clerk,Vaeancy"or"SupportWorker,Vacancy."Itisagreedthattheday to-dayworkoftheGrievorneverchanged,alwaysinvolvingtheperformanceofofficetasks,i.e. thesamedutiessheperformedasreplaeementforMrs.Laroehe. TheevidenceshowsthattheCollegeregularlyprovidedthechairmanoftheLocalUnion withsenioritylistsforfull-timepersonnelalongwithlistsidentifyingSupportStaffexcluded fi'omthebargainingunit,including"temporarySupportStaffemployedforover24hoursper weekandworkloadstaffhiredfornon-recun'ingprojects."TheAppendixDlistfortheperiod extendingfromSeptember1toDecember31,1992showsthattheGrievor,whosenamewasthen GatanneDubr,wasassignedtoanon-recurringprojectasofficeworkerreplacingG.Laroche. Mrs.CaronismentionedunderthesamedescriptionontheAppendixDlistfortheperiodfrom January1toApril30,1993.NoevidencehasbeensubmittedforApril30toSeptember9,1993. However,theAppendixDlistforSeptember9toDecember31,1993resumesthesame descriptionastheearlierlists.Then,afterMrs.Laroche'sresignation,Mrs.Caron'snameappears onalistwithnoreferencetoAppendixDentitled"AlphabeticalListofTemporarySupportStaff over24hours/weekandWorkloadStaffonNon-recurringProjects."TheGrievoristhen mentionedas"R:Vacancy,"meaningreplacementforavacancyonassignmenttoanon recun'ingproject.Forunexplainedreasons,Mrs.Caronisomittedfromthenexttwolists coveringtheperiodfromMay1toDecember31,1994.Finally,shereappearsonthelistfor January2toMarch31,1995,wheresheisagainshownassignedtoanon-recurringprojectas supportelerkreplaeingforavacancy. Inaddition,theevidenceshowsadegreeofeonfusionattileCollegeadministrationlevel regardingtheobligationtodeductunionduesforMrs.CaronwhileshewasassignedtoAppendix DandtocancelsuchdeductionswhenshewasassignedtoavacancyafterMrs.Lamche's resignation.Firstly,amemoaddressedtothechairmanoftheUniononSeptember23,1993with acopytoMr.GuyBordeleau,HeadofPayroll,byMrs.DeniseCouvillon,HeadofClient Services,stressesthatadjustmentsarerequiredinthat:"AsstatedintheCollectiveAgreement underArticle3ofAppendixD,TemporaryEmployees(page125),theemployeemusttherefore payuniondues."ItseemsthatafterMrs.Laroche'sresignation,thedeductionscontinueduntil March1,1994,whenMrs.CouvilloninformedMr.Bordeleauinamemothatinheropinion, unionduesshouldnothavebeenpaidsincethebeginningofJanuary1994. Itseemsclearthat,apartfromofherobligationtopayunionduesasanAppendixD employee,Mrs.CarondidnotconsiderherselfapermanentemployeeormemberoftheUnion. SheadmitsthatshedidnotconsultwiththeUnionatanytimeduringheremploymentabouther rightsundertheCollectiveAgreementorwithaviewtofilingagrievanceinthismatter.Itisalso clearthat,throughtheentiredurationofMrs.Caron's28employmentcontractsandevenlong aftertheresignationofMrs.Laroche,theLocalUniondidnotconsidertheGrievortobea unionizedemployeewithmembershipinthebargainingunit.Thisismadeobviousbyaseriesof E-mailmessagesfromtheLocalUnionrepresentative,Mrs.DanielleGravel,toMrs.Rainville duringMarch,AprilandMay1994.Atthattime,Mrs.GravelraisedobjectionsstatingthatMrs. Caron,asacontractemployee,enjoyedspecialtreatmentwithrespecttoovertimeandpaid holidays.Moreover,inamemodatedMay26,1994,LocalUnionrepresentativeMrs.Lucic ParentexpressedherindignationtoMrs.Rainvilleregardingtheabsencesandreplacementof Mrs.Caron.Sheexpressedherselfpartlyinthefollo3vingterms: OnFridayMay27,1994,GaOtanneCaronwasabsentforthedayplayinggnlf(La CitdTournament),CaroleBerthiaumewasatreceptionandEstelleLacroixwas calledintodoGatanneCaron'swork(acontractualreplacinganothercontractual). Everythinghasalimit.Thestudentsaregone;whatistheurgentworkthatMrs. Caronhasnothadtimetocomplete? Inmyopinion,thereisanabuseofovertimeandreplacementattheHawkesbury Campus,andallforoneperson. Mrs.Carondoesnotclaimthatsheconsideredherselfanemployeewithinthebargaining unitduringtheperiodofheremploymentcontracts.ShestatesthatshealwayshopedMrs. Laroehe'svacancywouldbepostedandthatshecouldapplytofillit,whichneverhappened despitethefactthatthepositionwaspostedtwicewithoutbeingfilledin1994and1995.Byher ownadmission,itwasonlyafterhercontractwasnotrenewedinJune1995,onasuggestionfrom anotheremployee,thatsherequestedinformationaboutherrightsfromUnionrepresentativeMr. LarrySawyerinToronto.ItwasaftertheseinquiriesthatshecontactedMrs.Gravelandher grievancewasfiledonJune15,1995. TheattorneyfortheUnionmaintainsthattheevidenceshowsthatMrs.Caronwasnot excludedfi'omthebargainingunitattheendofheremploymentinJune1995.Shepleadsthat becauseofherregularworkinghours,i.e.35hoursperweek,overacontinuousperiodofmore thantwoyears,shehadbecomeamemberofthebargainingunit.Foralmostthatentireperiod,she stresses,theGrievorperformed,amongotherthings,thedutiesoftheofficeworkerposition folxnerlyheldbyMrs.Laroche.Accordingtotheattorney,afterMrs.Laroche'sresignationin September1993,Mrs.CaroncouldnolongerbeclassifiedunderAppendixD.Moreover,she maintains,thiswasnotapersonemployedfora"projectofanon-recurringkind"asen'oneously indicatedintheemployeelistssenttotheUnionbytheCollege.Shepointsoutthatthereissimply noevidencetoindicatethatMrs.Caronwasassignedtoanon-recurringproject. TheattorneyfortheUnionaskstheBoardtofindthatMrs.Caronbecameapermanent employeeasofSeptember1993,asshewasnolongeranemployeeunderAppendixDandher regularworkinghoursremainedconsistentlyat35hoursperweek.SheasksthatMrs.Caronbe grantedthechancetotakeadvantageofherseniority-basedbumpingandrecallrights,where applicable,withdamagesandinterestifthefactsshowthatshesufferedalossofincomeasaresult offailuretoacknowledgeherseniorityrights. TheattorneyfortheCollegemaintainsthatthegrievanceisinadmissiblebecauseMrs. Caronwasneveramemberofthebargainingunit.Henotesthatfromthebeginningofher employmentinFebruary1991untilhernon-renewalinJune1995,Mrs.Caronwasemployedona contractbasis,havingpersonallysigned28contracts.HepointsouttotheBoardthatinJune1991, afterfourconsecutivecontracts,shestoppedworkingoverthesummerandatthattimeaccepteda statementofemploymentforemploymentinsurancepurposes,withoutfilingagrievance.He stressesthatin1992,astheeontractsshow,shereplacedMrs.LucieParentatarateof30hoursper week.Again,hepointsout,shewasnotemployedforthesummerandacceptedherstatementof employmentwithoutobjectingorfilingagrievance.Then,fromDecember1992toMarch1993, shereplacedGuylaineLamcheunderAppendixDafteracompetitionpostingandformalofferof employmentfromtheCollege. TheattorneyfortheCollegeemphasizesthatonAugust15,1994,theCollegepostedan officeworkerpositioninHawkesbury,butneverfilledtheposition,whichledtoagrievancefiled byMrs.LucieParent.Duringthesameperiod,hesays,theUnionraisedtheissueofMrs.Caron's overtimepaywiththeHumanResourcesofficeandfailedtofileagrievanceobjectingtoher exclusionfromthebargainingunit. Theattorneymaintainsthat,althoughaliteral,simplisticinterpretationoftheCollective AgreementmightfavourtheUnionpositioninthatMrs.Caronworked35hoursormoreperweek forovertwoyears,thesituationisinrealityquitedifferent.HestressesthattheCollective Agreementisadministeredaccordingtocertainarrangementsmadeatthelocallevel.Hedrawsthe Board'sattentiontothefactthat,priortothegrievanceofJune15,1995,allofthepartiesinvolved -theCollege,theUnionandtheGrievorherself-wereofthesameopinionastoMrs.Caron's 7 status,i.e.thatshewasatalltimesacontractemployeeoutsidethebargainingunit.Mrs.Caron's ownevidenceshowsthatalthoughshehadalwayshopedtosecureapermanentposition,shedid notwanttoupsetthestatusquo,andthereforeacceptedtoremainonacontractbasis.Undersuch circumstances,accordingtotheattorneyfortheemployer,thedeterminingfactorshouldbethe conductandintentionsofthepartieswho,inthiscase,allperceivedMrs.Caronasanon permanentemployee. AsregardslocalpracticeinadministeringtheCollectiveAgreement,theCollegerefersto Article4.2oftheAgreement,whichestablishesaUnionCollegeCommitteeandprovidesfor discussionsbetweentheparties.ThetermsofreferenceofthisCommitteearesetforthinArticle 4.2.2asfollows: 4.2,2Functions AnequalnumberofCollegeorCampusofficialswillmeetwiththeUnion College/CampusCommitteeatamutuallyagreedtimeandplaceprovidedthat eitherpartyrequestameeting.Suchameetingshallbeheldwithinseven(7)days ofreceiptofarequestunlessotherwiseagreedupon.Noticeofarequestfora meetingshallbeaccompaniedbyanagendaofmattersproposedtobediscussed. Itisagreedthatmatterssubjecttolocaldiscussioninclude: thelocalapplicationoftheAgreementincludingworkschedules; clarificationofproceduresorconditionscausingmisunderstandingor grievancesincludingmeetingfacilities; othermatterswhicharemutuallyagreedupon; employmentequityprograms; emplo3anentstability. Itisagreedthatwhereameetingascontemplatedinthissub-articletakesplaceby mutualconsent,duringregularworkinghours,membersoftheCommittee appointedbytheLocalUnionshallnotsufferanylossofpayduringregular workinghourswhenrequiredtoleavetheirdutiestemporarilyforthepurposeof attendingsuchameeting.TheUnionackn0w[edges,however,thattheemployees havetheirregulardutiestoperformandwillnotabsentthemselveswithoutfirst obtainingpermissionfromtheirimmediatesupervisorandreportingtotheir immediatesupervisoruponreturningtotheirregularduties.Inkeepingwiththis understanding,permissiontoattendsuchameetingshallnotbeunreasonably withheldconsistentwithCollegeoperatingrequirements. TheattorneyfortileCollegeexplainstotheBoardthattheCollectiveAgreementprovides noprecisedefinitionoftheword"regularly"whichappearsinthewordingofArticle1.1ofthe Agreement.Furthermore,therearenoarbitrationprecedentsinthismatter.Soaccordingtothe attorney,precedencemayinsuchcircumstanceslegitimatelybegrantedtolocalpracticesand implicitunderstandingsrelatedthereto.Inparticular,itmaybeconcludedthat,basedonthe conductofallpartiesinvolved,theemployerandUnionsharedthesameopinionregardingthe statusofMrs.Caronand,attheveryleast,theconductoftheUnionshowsthatitacceptedthe exclusionofMrs.Caronfromthebargainingunit.Thatreality,hepleads,mustbegroundsfor rejectionofthisgrievance. TheBoardofArbitrationmustthereforeconsiderthemeritsofthesetwoconflictingand verywell-presentedviewpoints.Tobegin,wefinditimportanttoacknowledgethelegal frameworkinwhichtheCollectiveAgreementisset.Thisisnotabargainingunitoracollective agreementthatthepartiescanreconstructoramendastheyseefit.Intheadministrationoftheir CollectiveAgreement,theCollegeandUnionareboundtoobservetheprovisionsoftheColleges CollectiveBargainingAct,R.S.O.1990,Chap.C.15.Inparticular,theycannotdeviatefromthe provisionsoftheActpreciselydefiningtheword"employee"andclearlydescribingthebargaining unit.Section1oftheAct,aswellasSchedule2thereto,readpartlyasfollows: PART1 GENEL 1InthisActandintheSchedules: "employee"meansapersonemployedbyaboardofgovernorsofacollegeof appliedartsandtechnologyinapositionorclassificationthatiswithinthe academicstaffbargainingunitorthesupportstaffbargainingunitsetforthin Schedules1and2;(emptoyd) SCHEDULE2 Tilesupportstaffbargainingunitincludestileemployeesofallboardsof governorsofcollegesofappliedartsandtechnologyemployedinpositionsor classificationsintheoffice,clerical,technical,healthcare,maintenance,building service,shipping,transportation,cafeteriaandnurserystaffbutdoesnotinclude, (i)foremen, (ii)supervisors, (iii)personsabovetherankofforemanorsupervisor, (iv)personsemployedinaconfidentialcapacityinmattersrelatedtoemployee relationsortheformulationofabudgetofacollegeofappliedartsand technologyorofaconstituentcampusofacollegeofappliedartsand technologyincludingpersonsemployedinclerical,stenographicor secretarialpositions, (v)otherpersonsempl@edinamanagerialorconfidentialcapacity, (vi)personsregularlyemployedfornotmorethantwenty-fourhoursaweek, (ix)apersonengagedforaprojectofanon-recurringkind, Therefore,asabasicprinciple,weconsiderthattheleewaygrantedtothepartiesinthe administrationoftheirCollectiveAgreement,bothgenerallyandwithintheframeworkofajoint committeesuchasthatdescribedunderArticle4.2.4,isnotwithoutlimits.Itgoeswithoutsaying thatthepartiesmaynot,bytheirownpracticeorunderstanding,rescindthelegalstatusgrantedto anindividualbylaw.Also,theopinionorbeliefofanemployeeregardinghis/herstatusunderthe lawisofnorelevanceindeterminingwhetherornothe/sheisactuallyapersonwhofallswithina bargainingunitformedasintendedbytheprovincialParliament.Thuswecannotconcurwiththe reasoningoftheCollegewherebytheperceptionandintentofthepartieswouldbethegoverning factorastotheGrievor'semployeestatus.Onthecontrary,webelievethatonlyobjectivefacts regardingheremploymentasassessedinthelightofstandardswrittenintotheCollegesCollective BargainingActaregoverningfactorsindeterminingwhetherornotMrs.Caronisapermanent employeefallingwithinthebargainingunit. Amattersimilartotheonebeforeusinvolvedanawardbyaboardofarbitrationheaded byarbitratorJaneJ.Devlin.ThiswasagrievancefiledagainstNiagaraCollegebytheOntario 10 PublicServiceEmployeesUnion,anunpublishedawarddatedJuly30,1993.Thegrievor,who workedforseveralmonthsasaclerkintwodifferentdepartmentsforover24hoursperweek, claimedthattheCollegeshouldgranthimpermanentemployeestatus.Theboardrejectedthe positionofthecollege,whichmaintainedthatthegrievorhadbeenassignedtoanon-recurring projectandfoundinfavourofthegrievor.Onpage12ofitsstatementofaward,theboard unanimouslystatedasfollows: Thereisnodoubtthatincaseswhereanemployee'shoursofworkaresubjectto ongoingfluctuation,aBoardofArbitrationmaytakeintoaccountaconsiderable. periodofemploymentwithaviewtodeterminingwhethertheemployeeregularly worksaspecifiednumberofhoursperweek.Inthiscase,however,foraperiodin excessofninemonthssubsequenttoFebruary24,1992,Mr.Domenicucciwas continuouslyemployedformorethan24hoursperweek.Hishourswerenot subjecttofluctuationandgiventhedurationoftheperiodinquestion,wefindthatsubsequenttoFebruary24th,hewasnolongerregularlyemployedfor24hoursper weekorless. AscomplicatedasMrs.Caron'semploymenthistorymayseem,heremploymentsituation isbasicallyquitesimpleasfarasheremployeestatusisconcerned.Firstly,itisagreedthat, notwithstandingwhatappearedontheemployeelistssubmittedtotheUnion,Mrs.Caronwas neverassignedtoanon-recurringprojectwithinthemeaningoftheCollectiveAgreement.Clearly, eventhoughshefilledapositionunderAppendixDasareplacementforGuylaineLaroehe,who wasonleaveofabsence,thisarrangementcametoanendwhenMrs.Larocheresignedin September1993.Whattranspiredbeyondthatpoint?Mrs.Caroncontinuedtoperformthesame officedutiesforalmosttwoyears,i.e.fromSeptember1993toJune1995.Duringthatentire period,sheregularlyworked35hoursperweek.Forthereasonsexplainedearlier,neitherher personalexpectations,northeintentionoftheCollege,northefactthatMrs.Caronsignedaseries ofcontracts,canchangetherealityofthesituationintermsofapplyingthelawandthecollective agreementpursuantthereto. 11 IfeverythinghadtakenplaceaeeordingtotheintentoftheActandtheCollective Agreement,whenMrs.Larocheresigned,theCollegewouldhavebeenforcedtomakeachoice regardingMrs.Caron.Itcouldreduceherregularworkinghourstoarateof24hoursorlessper weekoreithereliminatethepositionorpostthepositionandfillit.Inthelattercase,ifMrs.Caron hadbeenabletofilltheposition,shewouldthenhavebegunhersix-monthprobationaryperiod, whichwouldhavebeenincludedinherseniorityoncecompleted.ItwasnottheCollege's prerogativetoignorethelimitsofitsoptionsundertheActandtheCollectiveAgreementand simplycontinuetoemployMrs.Caronregularlyat35hoursperweekoveraperiodofoneyear andninemonthswithoutacknowledgingherpermanentemployeestatus. InthiscaseandinthelightofthedecisionreachedintheNiagaraCollegeaward,wehave nodifficultyincomingtotheconclusionthatMrs.Caronwas"regularly"employedatmorethan 24hoursperweek.Takingintoaccountthesix-monthprobationaryperiodtowhichtheparties agreedunderArticle14.1oftheCollectiveAgreement,aswellasthesix-monthperiodusedto calculatetheaveragenumberofworkinghoursunderAppendixCoftheAgreement,itis reasonabletobelievethat,attheveryleast,asix-monthperiodofcontinuousemploymentatmore than24hoursperweekshouldsufficetoestablishthatapersonisthus"regularly"employed withinthemeaningofArticle1.1oftheCollectiveAgreement. ThusweareforcedtoconcludethatMrs.Caroncouldnotbeexcludedfromthe bargainingunitonthebasisthatshewasnotregularlyemployedforatleast24hoursperweek. Shewasthereforeamemberofthebargainingunitandmustbeconsideredemployedinthat capacityasofSeptember16,!993-thedateonwhichtheHumanResourcesDepartmentreceived Mrs.Laroche'sletterofresignation.Asaresult,theBoardofAa'bitrationdeclaresMrs.Carontobe apermanentemployeeandmemberoftilebargainingunitwithsenioritydatingbackto September16,1993. !2 Wedonot,however,findreasontoorderpaymentofdamagestotheGrievorbasedonthe factsaspresented.Throughtheirownconduct,theUnionandtheGrievorledtheCollegeto believethatMrs.Caronwouldbetreatedasanon-unionemployeethroughtothetelaninationof heremploymentinJune1995.EvenwhenthegrievancewasfiledonJune15,1995,theCollege couldarguablyopposetheinclusionoftheGrievorinthebargainingunitbasedontheconductof theparties,includingMrs.Caronherself,relativetotheentirehistoryofheremployment.Inour opinion,itwouldbeinequitabletoordermonetarycompensationundersuchcircumstances. Onthesegrounds,thegrievanceisgrantedinpart.TheBoarddeclaresthatMrs.Caronis apermanentemployeebelongingtothebargainingunit,withsenioritydatingfromSeptember16, 1993.WeordertheCollegetograntMrs.Caronfullrightsarisingfromherstatusofpermanent employee,includingbumpingandrecallrights.ThemattershallremainbeforethisBoardinthe eventthatthepartiesareunabletoagreeontheexecutionofthisawardintermsoftheapplication thereofortheexeroiseofMrs.Caron'srights. MadeinToronto,this10thdayofFebruary1997. MICHELG.PICHER-CHAIRMAN "C.G.MASSE" C.G.MASSE-UNION-APPOINTEDMEMBER "R.ST-ONGE" R.ST-ONGE-EMPLOYER-APPOINTEDMEMBER 13