Employee wanted to take a year to teach at local college
An Ontario employee was not entitled to a leave of absence under his collective agreement because it didn’t provide sufficient professional development to justify it, an arbitrator has ruled.
Nevil Hunt was a news editor for two Ottawa-area newspapers owned by the Metroland Media Group. Hunt and other Metroland employees were eligible under the collective agreement to apply for an unpaid leave of absence of up to one year for professional or educational reasons, as long as the leave was “for good and sufficient cause” and didn’t interfere with the “efficient operation of the newspaper.”
Since the fall of 2008, Hunt — who joined Metroland in 2002 — was a part-time instructor at a local college. He arranged his teaching schedule around his work hours, and Metroland was fine with the arrangement.
In February 2011, the college offered Hunt a temporary position to teach journalism full-time while a professor took a one-year sabbatical. Hunt told co-workers that teaching journalism was his dream job and formally requested a leave of absence from Sept. 1, 2011, to May 1, 2012. He felt the experience would help his professional development, as it would make him a better news editor by honing his journalism skills and making him stay on top of trends. He also explained to Metroland that it would reduce the need for the company to bring in outside consultants to train staff because he would be equipped to instruct when he returned.
Metroland denied Hunt’s request, saying the leave was not for professional development related to his position, but rather for alternate employment. It also didn’t feel the staff Hunt suggested as his temporary replacements were up to the task. In addition, the company was satisfied with its corporate trainers and consultants and didn’t see a need for Hunt to fill that role.
The arbitrator found that the collective agreement required Hunt to establish “good and sufficient cause” for his leave to be approved. There wasn’t a specific definition what that was, which left it up to the employer to decide — in good faith — what would be sufficient.
