Journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio reviews recommendation 1. “The roster of adjudicators for review pan- els and selection of review panels should continue as outlined under the Ontario College of Trades and Appren- ticeship Act.” The OCOT’s professional and administrative staff of the OCOT should support the ratio review panels, Dean wrote. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio reviews recommendation 2. The OCOT should make sufficient efforts to communicate information about ratio reviews to ensure broad stake- holder participation from across On- tario. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio reviews recommendation 3. “The college’s board should consider estab- lishing new criteria under O. Reg. 458/11. Review panels would evaluate submissions against these criteria to decide the appropriate ratio for a trade prescribed with a ratio.” Dean recom- mended the following criteria: • quality of on the job training, “the impact of journeyperson-to-ap- prentice ratio on the training and performance of the apprenticeship and certification in the trade;” • the potential for risk of harm for an apprentice and others; • the demographic and labour mar- ket information for the trade, “in- cluding the age and availability of journeypersons, the number of prospective and registered appren- tices and the rate of apprentice- ship completions and certification;” • economic impact, including impact on consumers, employers, appren- tices, tradespeople, training insti- tutions and government; • the demand for skilled trades in different regional/geographic areas of the province and any trade sec- tor realities; • the experience of ratios for a simi- lar trade or trade sector in other ju- risdictions; and • other factors relevant to the public interest. The review panel may weigh the cri- teria, as it considers appropriate, Dean wrote. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio reviews recommendation 4. “There may be a need to provide the board with the authority to consider a short delay for the next cycle, due to begin in 2016, to allow for public consulta- tion on any proposed regulatory amendments and other implementa- tion activities.” –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio reviews recommendation 5. “The re- view panel for ratios should have the ability to call its own evidence. It should not be limited to evidence con- tained in participant written and oral submissions.” –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio reviews recommendation 6. The OCOT should “accelerate the collec- tion of, monitoring of and research about ratios and make this information available as part of its public data.” –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio reviews recommendation 7. The board should revisit the timeframe re- quired for a review panel to render its decision following its appointment, Dean wrote. “The current 120-day timeframe could be extended to 180 days, with any further extension being at the discretion of the board. Alterna- tively, the chair of the review panel could determine the time required for this part of the process, based on the specific circumstances of the applica- tion. There should be clear communi- cation of the timeframe.” –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio reviews recommendation 8. The OCOT “should develop a policy and evaluation framework to clarify the broader public policy goals, including the purpose and implementation con- siderations for journeyperson-to-ap- prentice ratios for trades prescribed with ratios. This framework should be informed by college stakeholders and the findings made publicly available.” –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– OCOT enforcement systems For enforcement and Ontario Labour Relations Board issues, Dean outlined some rule changes, with the observation that ‘The college’s current 8 – January 2016 — The Canadian Design and Construction Report approach to compliance and enforce- ment of the prohibitions under OCTAA could benefit from a framework to pro- vide clarity on enforcement that aligns with the public interest to protect workers and the public from harm.” Recommendations include: OCOT enforcement recommenda- tion 1. The OCOT should develop a policy based approach to compliance and enforcement that considers risk of harm and consumer protection. “The college registrar could operationalize this through the issuance of directives, guidelines or other interpretive docu- ments made publicly available on the college’s website and through any other means the college deems appro- priate.” –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– OCOT enforcement recommenda- tion 2. The OCOT should establish a compliance and enforcement commit- tee of the board “to assist with the de- velopment of a policy based framework for compliance and en- forcement. The majority of the mem- bership of this committee should be representatives from employer and employee groups with knowledge of the trades or trade sectors and who are not members of the college’s gov- erning boards. The board may also consider the need for representatives of other regulators and the public.” –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– OCOT enforcement and Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions The OCOT’s current approach to enforcement applies to the “full scope of practice” for a compulsory trade, and it regards this as equivalent to “en- gaging in the practice” of a compul- sory trade, Dean wrote. “This approach is inconsistent with and, in some cases, is disrupting previous agreements between workplace par- ties and past decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) in re- solving jurisdictional disputes. This is an issue because of the many factors in sectors and workplaces which have given rise to overlapping work be- tween trades.” He then elaborated how these mat- ters should be managed: