A union grievance alleging that Confederation College in Thunder Bay, Ont., failed to issue faculty workload assignment forms on time will proceed, following the dismissal of the college’s preliminary objection.
The college conceded that a number of assignments were delivered late, but argued that such concerns must be resolved through specific provisions in the collective agreement governing workload disputes. The arbitrator found instead that the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) Local 732 grievance raises a “matter of general concern” and may appropriately be processed under the union grievance procedure.
This decision clarifies how broad workplace standards — like timely distribution of workload forms — can be addressed through a union grievance in addition to the workload-monitoring procedures set out in the collective agreement.
Union sought damages
At issue was the college’s alleged failure to provide teachers with their standard workload forms (commonly referred to as SWFs) “no later than six weeks prior to the period covered by the timetable,” as required by Article 11.02 A 1 (a) of the collective agreement.
According to the grievance filed by the union, “the College has failed to adhere to the collective agreement by assigning SWF assignments to faculty less than six weeks prior to the beginning of the period covered by the SWF Assignment.” The union sought damages on behalf of all affected faculty.
College’s objections
The college objected on two central grounds. First, it argued that issues relating to workload assignments in Article 11 must be resolved using the dispute-resolution mechanisms established under that provision, rather than proceeding through the general grievance provisions of Article 32.
+Second, it asserted that the union could not file its own grievance because the affected employees could have pursued their own individual or group grievances, and there was no “unreasonable standard” at issue that would warrant the union’s direct involvement under Article 32.09.
The parties agreed that Article 11 outlines a detailed process for issuing SWFs each semester and resolving related disputes. Under that article, once a supervisor and a faculty member discuss the assignment, the supervisor provides a completed SWF. If the teacher disputes the SWF’s contents or calculation of hours, they may refer the matter to a Workload Monitoring Group (WMG) and, ultimately, to a Workload Resolution Arbitrator (WRA). The college’s counsel submitted that the six-week deadline for delivering SWFs is found within Article 11.02 and, therefore, any issue arising from a delayed SWF must also be addressed using the complaint procedure set out in the same article.
The college further relied on Article 32.09, which states that a union grievance “shall not include any matter upon which an employee would be personally entitled to grieve and the regular Grievance Procedure for personal or group grievance shall not be by-passed except where the Union establishes that the employee has not grieved an unreasonable standard that is patently in violation of this Agreement and that adversely affects the rights of employees.”
From the college’s perspective, late SWFs are clearly something employees could grieve themselves, meaning there is no basis for the union to bring its own complaint. Moreover, the college took the position that the timing of SWF issuance does not constitute an “unreasonable standard.”
Union’s counter
The union countered that the case involves “a matter of general concern” affecting multiple faculty members, rather than a specific dispute about the content of a single SWF. Pointing to several arbitration awards, the union noted that while the individual mechanism under Article 11 is designed for disputes involving a single teacher’s SWF (such as the calculation of evaluation hours or course-preparation time), systemic concerns over compliance with a threshold standard can be pursued under Article 32.
The union argued that the delayed delivery of SWFs in multiple instances is precisely the kind of overarching, workplace-wide issue that an individual complaint would not adequately address. The union emphasized that “the grievance concerns a patent violation of the collective agreement,” a threshold standard that employees rely on, and “adversely affects the rights of employees.”
According to the arbitrator’s written reasons, Article 11 is indeed a “comprehensive code” intended to handle many workload-related conflicts at an individual level. However, the arbitrator agreed with the union that the timely distribution of SWFs is not merely a technical detail for a single employee to dispute but rather a shared right intended to safeguard teachers’ ability to address potential workload issues in a timely manner. When multiple faculty experienced delayed SWFs, it raised an overarching problem. The arbitrator observed: “I do not see why the prompt delivery of SWFs in accordance with the timelines of the collective agreement is any less of a ‘threshold issue’ than issuing a SWF with more than the allowed number of hours.”
The arbitrator’s analysis compared a string of arbitral authorities. Some decisions have held that Article 11’s dispute resolution must be exclusive for workload issues, particularly those involving the calculation of hours or assignment details. Others concluded that, where “threshold standards” are in question — such as maximum hour caps or mandatory timelines that affect multiple employees — Article 32 may still apply if the union meets the preconditions for filing a union grievance. In supporting the union’s position, the arbitrator cited decisions referencing the concept that an individual WRA ruling is often time-limited and binding only for a single teacher’s assignment, whereas a union grievance can address a potentially system-wide problem.
Grievance satisfied conditions under collective agreement
In concluding that this matter properly belongs under Article 32, the arbitrator noted that the “number of late SWFs at issue” contributed to a generalized concern for faculty collectively. The arbitrator also found that the grievance satisfied all three conditions under Article 32.09, namely that it raised an unreasonable standard (late SWF distribution), alleged a patent violation of the collective agreement (one conceded by the college), and adversely affected employees’ rights in a broad sense. For those reasons, the arbitrator dismissed the college’s preliminary motion and allowed the union grievance to proceed.
Because the employer conceded that late SWFs had been issued but maintained there were valid reasons, the merits of the union’s claim remain open. The arbitrator “continue[s] to remain seized” to address the case’s substantive aspects, including the union’s request for damages on behalf of affected faculty.
For more information, see Ontario Public Service Employees Union Local 732 v Confederation College, 2025 CanLII 740 (ON LA).
