UVic — Asked & Answered

University of Victoria PEA members should be aware that reporting of CTO hours to the employer is required in order to make a claim for time back or payment. When CTO time is documented and the supervisor is aware of the liability, the employer must either provide the time off or arrange for payment for the extra hours worked in accordance with Article 10 of the collective agreement.

The employer has recently raised concerns about members saving up significant amounts of CTO and then “surprising” their department with claims for large amounts of time owing to them. They claim that the employee has an obligation to inform the employer of the time owing as soon as possible, so that arrangements can be made to schedule time off.

Arbitrators have generally agreed with this interpretation of employers' potential liability. In several cases, rulings have stated that any rights coming to a member which aren't recognized by the employer should be grieved promptly. If the employee, through the union or association, does not grieve the alleged violation of the agreement in a timely manner, the employer has limited obligation to go back in time to correct inequities which it wasn't previously aware of. Although there may be circumstances that warrant proceeding to challenge the employer's interpretation, members should generally be aware that any time owing as a result of extra work hours — or any other collective agreement obligations — must be brought to the employer's attention promptly to provide a reasonable opportunity for success in gaining a satisfactory resolution.

Depending on departmental practice, CTO should be reported regularly if members have not been able to flex their schedule to average their work to a 35-hour week. The member and his or her supervisor can then arrange for scheduling of compensatory time off. If problems arise in dealing with this issue, please contact a local rep or your staff officer.

Clause 12.01 (a) of the collective agreement provides vacation on a pro-rated basis for regular part-time staff members. For a regular member working 0.5 FTE in their first to fifth year of employment this would equate to eleven (11) working days vacation per annum.

Clause 11.01 designates the statutory holidays and clause 11.02 addresses the question of entitlement. Part-time staff members are paid for the statutory holidays at their regular salary based on their daily average rate during the preceding twenty-two (22) working days. Statutory holiday entitlement is calculated as holiday pay and not provided as time-off.

Your chances of being granted an extended leave of absence depend on the impact your absence has on the operation of your department.

Clause 14.04 is the most appropriate language under which to apply for extended leave of absence because absence for unavoidable personal business is short-term leave and reasonable compassionate leave also implies short-term leave. Clause 14.04 states:

“Staff members may apply for personal leave of absence without salary. Granting of such leave of absence is subject to operational requirements but shall not be unreasonably denied. Applications for personal leave without pay shall be made to the staff member's Dean or Director through the normal administrative channels”.

Note in this language there is no limit to the time requested, the leave is without salary and is subject to operational requirements, although it will not be unreasonably denied. In other words, members are free to request whatever period of time they desire and as long as it does not create operational difficulties, such as finding a suitable replacement or addressing a major component of the job with new staff like fiscal year-end, the leave will probably be granted.

The onus is on the employer to seek a suitable replacement in the absence of the member, but assisting the department in finding a replacement could improve the chances of the request being approved.

Another option, depending on when the leave of absence is required, is the Deferred Salary Leave Program (DSLP) where a portion of salary can be deferred for a period of time to finance a future leave of absence. Information on that program is available on the UVic chapter website and from the Human Resources department.

Each department is responsible for tracking vacation entitlements for its PEA staff. If there are difficulties with interpreting an individual employee's entitlement, human resources staff are available to assist.

While some departments may choose to notify staff of their vacation allotment, PEA members should be familiar with the entitlements established in Article 12 of the collective agreement. Vacation entitlement for regular staff is as follows:

Entitlements are prorated for part-time and/or part-year service. Term staff members are entitled to 15 working days of vacation per year. Any term staff member who works continuously for more than three years will earn the same vacation as a regular staff member beginning in the fourth year of continuous service.

Vacation is accrued according to the calendar year, from January 1 to December 31, and may be carried forward. Staff members are expected to take their earned vacation by December 31 of the year following the year in which it was earned. The total accumulated vacation at December 31 of each year may not exceed 40 days, excluding long service vacation.

Long service vacation is a supplementary entitlement granted once in each five-year period after becoming eligible, and must be used within the five-year period or be forfeited. Long service vacation entitlements are as follows:

PEA members unsure of their current vacation entitlement should check with the appropriate person in their department. PEA staff are available to assist with interpretation and clarification.

Excessive blameless absenteeism can be a reason for the University to terminate employees who, for medical reasons, are incapable of reasonable regular attendance at work. In such cases, discharge may result, not as a form of discipline or punishment, but rather because the employee is seen as incapable of performing his/her assigned duties in a consistent manner.

To substantiate termination of employment in these circumstances the University would have to demonstrate that the employee has a long-standing record of excessive absenteeism, well beyond the record of other employees, and that there is no indication that the absenteeism record will improve. The University would also have to demonstrate that it thoroughly investigated reasons for the employee's excessive absenteeism and took appropriate steps to assist the employee in improving the situation (e.g. medical consultation, or reference to counseling if required).

The University is obliged to warn the employee about the possibility of severance of the employment relationship because of excessive absenteeism, and must provide the employee with reasonable time in which to significantly improve their attendance. In order to terminate an employee, the University must be able to present convincing reasons why there is little or no likelihood of a future reduction in the employee's absenteeism, which could require producing medical evidence to support their conclusion.

The minimum hours of work required for participation in the medical plans is 0.5 FTE.

Although not specifically addressed in the collective agreement, the wording of Article 18 clearly requires staff members to be eligible under the terms of each plan before enrolment takes place.

The difficulty in responding to questions on benefits programs is that there are a myriad of terms surrounding each plan that make it almost impossible to provide one answer that is applicable to each and every personal circumstance. Application of those rules may differ for full-time, part-time and term appointments in addition to the personal circumstances of the staff member.

The Human Resources department has produced a comprehensive Benefits Information Handbook that is the definitive source for information on the programs available to A&AP staff members. The department's benefits experts are well versed on the terms of each plan and can best respond to member questions based on individual circumstances.

Regarding contributions to the pension plan, the collective agreement distinguishes between full-time and part-time members and to which plan each group is eligible to contribute. This is addressed in clauses 18.08 and 18.09.

According to clause 18.09 all regular part-time staff members who are eligible under the terms of the University Pension Plan will, as a condition of employment, participate in the Money Purchase Plans opposed to the Combination Pension Plan, which all regular full-time members participate in.

Voluntary participation in benefits and the money purchase pension plan is also permitted for staff members appointed to term positions subject to qualifiers. Again, in relation to pension plan contribution, the advice and guidance of the Pension Services experts should be sought in addition to that of Human Resources staff.

Guidelines for the new central professional development fund are now in place at UVic and PEA members are able to submit applications to access this account to offset professional development costs.

Our last round of collective bargaining established the new central fund to cover costs of course expenses, memberships, or purchases that exceed the available funds in a member's personal account, and which aren't covered by the department or faculty.

In accordance with the Professional Development Expense Account (PDEA) Administrative Guidelines, the following expenses are eligible for reimbursement under the fund:

• travel (including accommodation), tuition, course or registration fees and other expenses for conferences, workshops, seminars and other similar activities; and meetings of professional and business organizations
• membership fees in professional and business organizations
• expenses directly associated with a staff member's work responsibilities or professional development program (for example: books, journals, computer hardware and software, audio-visual equipment, materials, page charges, reprints, interlibrary loan charges).

Applications for use of funds from the new account will be accepted for any activities or purchases occurring after September 1. The requests should be forwarded to your department head, and then submitted to Lois Jones in Human Resources. The procedure for applying is detailed on the policies page of the University web site.

Requests may range from a minimum of $250 to a normal maximum of $1,000 per application. In exceptional circumstances, the committee reviewing the requests may approve applications up to $2000. All applications will be reviewed by a joint committee comprised of University representatives and PEA members selected by the PEA chapter executive.

For information on the policies covering both the new central Pro-D fund, and the individual accounts for each member, please refer to the PDEA Policy.

Any questions regarding the fund may be directed to your local rep, members of the chapter executive, or your staff officer.

Clause 25.01 of the collective agreement states that except at normal retirement, and unless otherwise agreed by the parties, staff members shall give at least one (1) month's notice of their resignation.

That language provides for approximately four weeks notice and does not necessitate a calendar month. The language also provides for variance from that time period, as agreed by the parties, so less or more time could be provided if employer and employee mutually agree this is acceptable.

While the clause does not require you to submit your resignation in writing, we recommend that you do so.

Clause 23.02 provides that the University agrees not to contract out any work presently performed by staff members which would directly result in the layoff of a staff member.

In other words, PEA work can be contracted out by UVic where it does not result in layoff of PEA staff, and doing so is not a violation of the collective agreement.

The language would be stronger if it ended after “work presently performed by staff members.” The place to strengthen language, however, is at the bargaining table if, in fact, contracting out of PEA work is on the increase and not just anecdotal information.

Generally, an employee's private life is his/her own and what s/he does away from the workplace is his/her business and is no affair of the employer.

However, under certain circumstances, an employee may be disciplined for his/her off-duty conduct if the conduct is prejudicial to the reputation of the employer. If an employee is discharged because of his/her off-duty conduct, the onus is on the employer to show that:

• The employee's behavior renders the employee unable to perform his/her duties satisfactorily.
• the employee's behavior leads to refusal, reluctance or inability of other employees to work with him/her.
• The employee has been guilty of a serious breach of the criminal code, thus adversely affecting the general reputation of the employer and placing the employer in a difficult position to efficiently manage and direct its workforce.

There is also an onus on the employer to show that it has taken reasonable steps to ascertain whether the risk of continued employment might be mitigated through closer supervision or transfer of the employee to another position. For example, when an employee temporarily loses his/her driver's license and is, therefore, unable to perform his/her normal job duties, the employer must give reasonable consideration to employing the employee elsewhere until the suspension is lifted.

In cases where criminal charges have been laid against an employee for his/her off-duty conduct, the employer may suspend the employee pending the results of the court proceedings. In such cases, however, the employer has the onus of demonstrating that the charge levied is of such a nature that it is unreasonable to continue to employ the employee until his/her guilt or innocence is ascertained.

Where an employee is involved in an argument or altercation with a supervisor during his/her off-duty hours, discipline is warranted where the employee's action has the effect of undermining the authority of the supervisor. In other words, the action must amount to gross insolence or rudeness severe enough to prejudice the interests of the employer..

Arbitrators have ruled that a computer at the workplace is the property of the employer, and may be accessed by employer representatives at their discretion. The only limitation on this access would be if collective agreement language gave some rights of privacy to employees. Barring such language, members should be cautious regarding personal email on their work computer — the employer has access to those records and may gain access even without password knowledge, if they wish to do so. Remember, do not send or save any messages which you would not want your employer to see.

Article 6 of our collective agreement assures Association members freedom of expression without jeopardy to their position or status. Members are assured also of academic freedom for any research or teaching activities authorized by the University consistent with University policies and procedures applying to those involved in teaching and research activities.

While acknowledging our members' rights to freedom of expression, the University recently argued that freedom must be exercised in a responsible manner and members should be accountable for any outcomes arising. The University subsequently raised concerns about opinions raised and issues expressed on the PEA listserve and asked the Association to jointly work towards identifying guidelines for proper use of the listserve. The University's rationale is that Association members should be provided with guidance as to what is acceptable, and expectations as to repercussions if they cross pre-determined and jointly agreed boundaries.

PEA representatives on the Association University (A/U) Committee disagreed that examples provided by the University were indicative of improper use of the listserve. Rather than restricting members' use of the listserve, PEA representatives argued they would arrange for an Association sponsored listserve to replace the existing one.

The topic has yet to be debated in-depth and remains an issue on the A/U Committee agenda for resolution.

PEA members at the University recently raised questions about situations where employees in supervisory positions have been accused of harassment as a result of carrying out their responsibility for providing direction and control over subordinate employees.

A good starting point in determining whether the level of supervision being exercised is legitimate, or falls into the realm of harassment, is to look at some accepted definitions of personal harassment. One accepted broad definition of personal harassment that occurs in collective bargaining relationships is:

Objectionable conduct or comment directed towards a specified person(s), which serves no legitimate work purpose, and has the effect of creating an intimidating, humiliating, hostile or offensive work environment.

An important consideration in this definition is the phrase, "which serves no legitimate work purpose". In other words, providing input to a worker's level of performance, when that is the role of a supervisor, is not in and of itself grounds for a complaint of harassment.

If the direction given by a supervisor goes beyond the provision of legitimate workplace guidance, direction, or in some cases, discipline, then there may be grounds for a complaint of personal harassment. Some examples of personal harassment could include but are not limited to:

• Threats, bullying, coercion
• Actual or threatened physical assault
• Verbal assault, taunting or ostracizing
• Malicious gestures or actions that create a poisoned work environment as described above

N. Glass, in a 1995 paper titled "Personal Harassment", provides the following definition of harassment:

“Conduct which has no legitimate work related purpose, and poisons the work environment or leads to adverse job related consequences for the victim.”

Although many employees view any input from supervisory positions and especially the imposition of discipline as harassment, arbitrators are unlikely to find a supervisor guilty of harassment unless the behavior falls within one of the definitions noted above.

The following statements made by arbitrators lend insight to their views regarding allegations of harassment. In British Columbia and BCGEU (1995), Arbitrator Laing noted that:

“Not every employment bruise should be treated under this (harassment) process... This is a serious word, to be used seriously and applied vigorously when the occasion warrants its use.”

In an unreported case involving the Vancouver Richmond Association for Mentally Handicapped People and BCGEU Local 403 in 1995, Arbitrator Jackson stated:

“Unfair and aggravating comments are not the same as demeaning or humiliating ones. To demean someone is to lower their dignity. To humiliate someone is to injure her (sic) self-respect.”

In one case in which an employer made negative comments toward a worker, subsequently told the worker that he did not trust him, and did so in front of other employees, the employee filed a harassment grievance. In this case (Religious Hospitallers of St. Joseph of Hotel Dieu of Kingston and Ontario Public Employees Union, Local 465 [1995]), the arbitrator denied the grievance, stating:

“In my view, harassment is not a proper vehicle to use in the situation that has been presented before me. I fully recognize that the grievor was agitated and frustrated... because of his perception of what was transpiring at the workplace. He was receiving no support from the director but on the other hand was being subjected to severe criticism and that criticism was handed out in an improper manner... The director's management and supervisory skills are sorely lacking.”

Although the arbitrator found that the supervisor was carrying out the functions of his position poorly and "in an improper manner," such actions did not constitute harassment.

As a supervisor, if the input you provide to subordinate employees is consistent with legitimate goals of providing oversight to their work, and follows the general parameters of the above examples, then there should be no finding of harassment.

To protect yourself from such allegations, it is always a good idea to make notes of conversations you have had with subordinates, ensure that your comments are work related, and, in cases where conflicts exist, have your discussions witnessed.

Remember, whether you are in a position directly supervised by others, or if you are providing that supervision, legitimate performance input — equally applied to all employees in the same work environment — is an expected part of a supervisor's duties and responsibilities, and does not constitute harassment.

If you, as a supervisor, are accused of harassment, you have the right to defend your actions and the right of advocacy from a representative of your Association when meeting with your employer, or with an investigator assigned to review the allegations on the employer's behalf.

UVic recently sparked a furor among some PEA members by accessing private employee files stored on University-owned computer equipment. Legal advice recently provided by PEA counsel indicates that the arbitral case law clearly supports an employee's right to privacy. However, that right is not absolute — it is judged against what is reasonable in the circumstances after balancing the parties' interests.

We asked PEA lawyer Bruce Laughton for answers to these questions:

• Is a search of employee computer records an invasion of privacy?
• What right of privacy do employees have with respect to their offices?
• What right of privacy do employees have with respect to their personal belongings such as a briefcase?

The relevant arbitral jurisprudence suggests employees have a right to privacy they do not relinquish when they become employees. As cited in Loomis Armored Car Service Ltd (1998): “It is well established that persons do not by virtue of their status as employees lose their right to privacy and integrity of the person. An employer could not at common law assert any inherent right to search an employee or subject an employee to a physical examination without consent.”

In another case, Doman Forest Products Ltd (1991), the arbitrator found: “The first thing to note is that the right to privacy is not absolute. It first must be judged against what is “reasonable in the circumstances” and, amongst other things, is dependent upon competing interests such as “the relationship between the parties”. It may be violated by “surveillance” which I take to be both visual and electronic. The Privacy Act, therefore, gives the grievor a legal right to privacy in certain circumstances, quite apart from any contractual right which s/he may have with the company.”

The circumstances in Doman Forest Products Ltd dealt with admissibility of videotape surveillance evidence but the comments in that case with respect to an individual's right to privacy have been applied in many subsequent arbitration awards.

In Saint Mary's Hospital (1997) hidden video cameras were involved. The arbitration panel said: “What is important is that upon analysis of the jurisprudence, the right to implement surveillance is analogous to the right to search, at least in the sense that, in both cases, the issue involves employee privacy rights and an employer's right to maintain the security of the business.”

The panel then referred to Algoma Steel Corporation (1984) which held that “the ultimate determination depends on an application of the employer's right to invoke reasonable work rules and practices. The arbitrator must balance the legitimate business interests of the employer against concerns of the employees to privacy and to be free from unreasonable search or surveillance in light of the alternatives and establish adequate cause to justify the search.”

Few cases deal specifically with privacy rights in work settings where employees use computers and e-mail in the performance of their duties.

In one case, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Workers, Local No. 97 and OTEU, Local 15 (1997), the grievor was suspended on the ground that she had continued to perform personal projects during working hours. The employer had hired a computer specialist to run a salvage program through the employer's computer system to recover any files the grievor had deleted from her hard drive. The grievor had not been advised of the decision to salvage her computer files nor asked if she would consent to the recovery of these files.

A number of files containing personal material were recovered, enabling the employer to determine dates and times the documents were last saved to the hard drive. The Union argued the employer's case was based entirely upon evidence discovered in breach of the grievor's right to privacy and thus the evidence was inadmissable.

The arbitrator held: “Where an employer has engaged in a breach of an employee's privacy to obtain evidence of misconduct, arbitrators have exercised a discretion to refuse its admission in the proceeding as part of the authority to regulate the arbitration process and ensure the parties are accorded a fair hearing. On the facts of this case I am not satisfied the employer violated the grievor's privacy by recovering files deleted from the hard drive of her computer. The computer equipment belongs to the employer. This is not a case where the employer has searched an employee's private property or person to obtain evidence of misconduct. Nor is this a case where the employer used some clandestine means to monitor an employee's conduct in the workplace. Further, employees use the computers assigned to them in accordance with the employer's instructions. They have not been given an unlimited authority to use their computers for personal matters. Indeed, the grievor was specifically instructed that she could not perform work of a personal nature on the employer's time. Lastly, documents employees type on their computer terminals, whether personal or work-related, are copied directly into a main frame through a network system installed by the employer. As a consequence, an employee's files are equally accessible through the network system. In these circumstances, I find that employees do not have a reasonable expectation that the work performed on their computer terminals will remain private. Even the grievor recognized that her work could be subject to scrutiny.”

The arbitrator also held that the employer had reasonable grounds to search the grievor's deleted files since she had a past history of performing personal projects during working hours. The arbitrator stated:

“Thus, unlike circumstances in Lornex Mining Corporation (1984) the employer did not conduct a random search of the grievor's computer files. Moreover, it is apparent the employer had no reasonable alternative means of obtaining evidence of the grievor's suspected misconduct. The employer does not closely monitor its employees in the office nor would surveillance be an acceptable alternative.”

In Lornex Mining Corporation Ltd the issue was whether the employer was entitled to conduct random lunch-box searches. In that case the arbitrator commented:

“However, in the formulating of such rules and regulations an employer must recognize the principle of the right to privacy of an employee. In balancing the interests of the employer and the employee on this issue, it is not reasonable to institute a set of rules and regulations which are arbitrary in the sense that the security guards who enforce the rule can do so at their whim in so far as the selection of any one or more employees for inspection is concerned. They ought to be given certain criteria for the selection process that not only avoids arbitrariness but also avoids any discrimination, the possibility or the perception of discrimination.”

“On the facts adduced in evidence before me, I find that the company's rule fails on both counts. In my judgement, it is a legitimate right of employees who are not under suspicion for alleged theft, not to be singled out in any arbitrary or capricious manner for such lunch-box searches. Nor should they be placed in the position of being perceived, either by their peers or their supervisors as having been selected for lunch-box inspections on other than a purely impartial or objective basis.”

In summary the arbitration cases establish the following principles:

• An employee has a right to privacy; however, that right is not absolute.
• The right to privacy is to be balanced with the right of the employer to protect legitimate business interests.
• An employer may adopt reasonable rules and regulations with respect to protecting legitimate interests but those rules must also take into account the privacy interests of employees.
• Where the employer has a reasonable basis to suspect misconduct and there are no reasonable alternative methods for investigating the suspected misconduct, it will not likely be held by an arbitrator that there has been a breach of the privacy of an individual such that evidence obtained through a search or surveillance is inadmissable.
• No breach of an employee's right to privacy will be found if the employee, on an objective view of the facts, would not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

1. An employee's office is not automatically protected by an individual right to privacy. The office is the employer's and has been assigned to employees for their use while performing work duties for the employer. Certain parts of the office may be considered personal or private in the sense that personal belongings are kept there. Unless the employer has reason to suspect misconduct no search of personal belongings or areas containing personal belongings is justified.
2. The analysis with respect to personal files or a personal briefcase on the computer is more difficult given the lack of cases in which such an issue has been analyzed. One analysis is contained in the OTEU case. If the employer has reason to suspect misconduct, a search of all files, including personal files may be justified. On the other hand, a random search of personal files will not be justified.

The difficulty with the OTEU case is that it applies the analysis of whether the grievor would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. It was found that such an expectation would not exist given the employer's general access to the computer files through the network system. It is therefore arguable that no information contained in computers which are the property of the employer and which are being provided for work-related duties are protected by a right to privacy.

Some PEA members at the University have been asked to provide their supervisor with personal impressions of how they are doing in their work, and in what areas their weaknesses lie, or where they feel they need improvement. Members should be aware that this information, if viewed by the employer as negative in nature, can be included in a formal written evaluation that may be placed on their personnel file, or included in assessments of performance during probationary periods.

Although frank discussions of work issues may benefit employees and supervisors in dealing with any employment problems that arise and finding creative solutions to those problems, the tendency to be critical of your own performance in any self-evaluation may cause future problems.

If you are asked to comment on your own view of your performance, emphasize your areas of strength and ask your supervisor to give you feedback on any areas of performance he or she feels you should focus on improving.

Remember, it is the employer's responsibility to inform you of issues of concern regarding your employment performance, and to provide the opportunity, and assistance, in meeting expectations regarding those concerns. It is not the employee's responsibility to provide negative information about his or her performance to the employer.

Some PEA members at the University have been asked to provide their supervisor with personal impressions of how they are doing in their work, and in what areas their weaknesses lie, or where they feel they need improvement. Members should be aware that this information, if viewed by the employer as negative in nature, can be included in a formal written evaluation that may be placed on their personnel file, or included in assessments of performance during probationary periods.

Although frank discussions of work issues may benefit employees and supervisors in dealing with any employment problems that arise and finding creative solutions to those problems, the tendency to be critical of your own performance in any self-evaluation may cause future problems.

If you are asked to comment on your own view of your performance, emphasize your areas of strength and ask your supervisor to give you feedback on any areas of performance he or she feels you should focus on improving.

Remember, it is the employer's responsibility to inform you of issues of concern regarding your employment performance, and to provide the opportunity, and assistance, in meeting expectations regarding those concerns. It is not the employee's responsibility to provide negative information about his or her performance to the employer.

Expense Accounts (PDEA), and the policy governing that clause, do apply to term employees as well as regular staff members.

The draft PDEA policy states:

“All PEA staff members holding regular appointments and all PEA staff members who have completed, within the academic year, three continuous years of a term appointment with the University and who are not on leave without pay for the academic year will be eligible for PDEA.”

As noted, the policy is still in draft form, but the amount of $250 per year, cumulative from year to year, has been agreed to. Please contact your local rep, or the PEA office for more information regarding this policy.

No. Article 20, Part A of the collective agreement between the PEA and the University is prefaced by the clause, “Regular staff members may apply for salary supported professional development leave...”

This means that these articles apply only to regular staff, and term employees are not eligible for salary supported leave.

Article 18.10 provides the opportunity for staff members, holding term appointments for a minimum of three months at 0.5 FTE or more, to enroll in Medical and Extended Health Benefits Plans at the first of the month following employment, and in the Dental, Basic Group Life, and Optional Group Life and Pension Plans after 12 months of continuous service. All of these are on the same cost-share basis as for regular employees, as outlined in Articles 18.01 through 18.09.

Yes. Article 12.01 (b) entitles term staff to 15 paid vacation days per year for the first three years of appointment, and with the same entitlement as regular staff after three years.

Leave of absence without pay is available to all staff members, regardless of their status, subject to operational requirements of the University.

Other leaves, such as maternity leave and parental leave, are available to term employees, however the supplementary benefits and other payments may be restricted depending on the employee's status. Each leave request must be examined individually to determine eligibility.