Search

Loyalist College Collective Agreement

Loyalist College Collective Agreement

“In this case, the condition of [the teacher`s] recruitment was not sanctioned by the collective agreement and was not other than the routine management of the contract. Nor do I think it was a term that is not within the scope of the agreement, which could be negotiated individually. Instead, it was a term that went to the heart of maintaining [the teacher`s] employment. On the basis of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Chamber correctly held that the condition of [the teacher`s] employment was not valid.¬†“The House`s finding of a conflict between the condition and the collective agreement is a good one. The board considered section 27.02C in light of the arbitrators` understanding of the traditional objective of a trial period: the assessment of the worker`s benefit. In accordance with paragraph 27.02C, a probation officer received progress reports every four months to allow the worker to remedy any deficiencies in his or her work. That was essentially the agreement of the college and THE OPSEU. Although section 27.02C does not explicitly oppose it, the condition of recruitment was implicitly contrary to it and its purposes. This condition amplified the agreement between the college and THE OPSEU, and thus undermined.¬†Although universities are required to automatically enroll in extended Health Care, please note that standard coverage applies to a person`s coverage. So be sure to fill out the Sun Life Positive registration form for group insurance benefits to formally indicate your decision to participate in the available benefit rights, with individual or family coverage. You can find a PDF version of your current collective agreement here: 2017-2021 Academic Collective Agreement.

The College also argued that the arbitration body erred in finding that the condition imposed on the teacher was in conflict with the collective agreement. Since the collective agreement does not expressly oppose the requirement to pursue academic work or to pursue professional development, such a requirement cannot be contrary to agreement. Before the Board of Directors, the union argued that the employer`s action was directly equivalent to negotiating the terms of employment with the workers, without consulting the union or obtaining its agreement. It stated that the PSV had only been offered to selected workers and that in exchange for the adoption of the expanded separation package, the affected workers were required, without the union`s advice, to give up all the rights they had under the collective agreement and the right to bereavement. The employer is encouraged to do so, the union argued, because the termination clauses in the collective agreement generated significant costs for the employer. According to the union, the VSP is a clause and a condition of employment and, by negotiating directly with the workers, the employer has undermined the union`s role as an exclusive bargaining partner. The court rejected this argument, noting that the Supreme Court had emphasized “the inviability of the collective bargaining system and the union`s role as a representative of all workers in the collective bargaining unit.” While acknowledging that minor clauses or clauses can be negotiated outside the scope of the agreement, the Court recognized that this was not the case: just as the loyalist insurance university does not specify, employers should not invoke the existence of a specific clause in the collective agreement that covers the proposed program or is imposed on the condition of employment. If the program or condition has a demonstrable effect on the operation of other collective agreements, it is probably considered to be a clause or condition of employment that is the subject of negotiations and, therefore, an issue that must be negotiated with the bargaining partner.


Comments are closed.
error: Copy Protected