Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWard 14-06-30IN THE MATTER OF A WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CONFEDERATION COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 732 ("the College") ("the Union") AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint regarding the workload of Professor Rebecca Ward BEFORE: Robert C. Edwards, Workload Resolution Arbitrator FOR THE UNION: Bert Dube John Kornichuk Rebecca Ward FOR THE COLLEGE: Gail Murdock Christine Bates Dean Joseph Cordeiro A hearing was commenced on November 28th 2013 in Thunder Bay. The matter was set for continuation for December 16th 2013, but had to be adjourned due to the illness of one of the party representatives. The matter was resumed at the earliest available date, for the conclusion of evidence and submissions on March 26th 2014. DATE OF DECISION: June 30th 2014 DECISION 1. This is a Workload Resolution Arbitration under Article 11 of the Collective Agreement. I have been appointed as the Workload Resolution Arbitrator ("WRA") to determine this matter. 2. Through her union, Professor Ward challenges the Standard Workload Form ("SWF") for September 5th 2013 to December 13th 2013. She challenges the SWF on the basis: • that the mix of assignments is unfair and inequitable; that it fails to take into account atypical circumstances; and that it violates Article 11 of the Collective Agreement. 3. In particular, the Union places in issue that: • the Evaluation Feedback Factor for Course SS116-AS (Social Welfare) was reduced from the previous factor (from autumn 2012) of 0.0198 to 0.0174; and • the credit for "Additional Attributed Hours" for the Course was reduced from one (1) to zero (0). 4. The SWF for September to December 2012, is attached as Appendix "A". The SWF for September to December 2013 is attached as Appendix "B". 5. For reasons set out below, this award provides that the Evaluation Feedback Factor for SS116-AS for the period for September to December 2013 should be reinstated as 0.0198. 1 make no further award with respect to the additional attributed hour(s) claimed. BACKGROUND 6. At the outset of the hearing, I was advised that this complaint is the only matter that has gone to workload resolution arbitration this year. It is the first matter that has gone to arbitration in many years. That history, and the approach taken by both parties during this arbitration, speaks volumes to the hard work by both sides to resolve matters through discussion. 7. There were no objections to jurisdiction. 8. The Academic Employees Collective Agreement is effective from December 111 2012 to August 31St 2014. In the proceedings, the parties also produced and relied on a Local Agreement. 9. On its face the Local Agreement is effective from September 1 st 2011 to August 31St 2012. However, I confirmed that the parties treat the Local Agreement as in full force and effect, as do I. 10. Article 11 of the Academic Employees Collective Agreement is complicated. The Local Agreement deals almost exclusively with issues arising from Article 11 ("Workload"). The Local Agreement does not make interpretation any easier. 11. The SWF is an extremely important form. It has been described in a helpful decision by Matthew R. Wilson, WRA as follows: "A SWF is used by the parties to detail the teaching workload assignment. Pursuant to article 11.02A2 of the collective agreement, the SWF must include all details of the total workload including teaching contact hours, accumulated contact days, attributed hours, among many other details. Following the issuance of a SWF, the teacher has an opportunity to indicate whether he/she agrees with the total workload that is being assigned. If a disagreement persists, the collective agreement sets out a resolution process that stars with a Workload Monitoring Group ("WMG"), comprised of an equal number of College and Union representatives, and then can ultimately be referred to a Workload Resolution Arbitrator." Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology and OPSEU, Local 242 (Wilson) April 22, 2093, para. 4 12. My jurisdiction as a Workload Resolution Arbitrator is limited. While the intent of Article 11 is to provide for an equitable assignment of teaching workload, it has been recognized that the system provides a form of rough justice. The jurisdiction of the WRA appears to be even more limited than the scope of inquiry by the Workload Management Group ("WMG") 13. There is a good question as to whether a review of the "equity" of a specific SWF should be considered by any WRA. Arbitrator Wilson's decision in Niagara adopts persuasive reasoning by Arbitrator Marilyn Nairn on this issue: "In Seneca College and OPSEU, February 28, 2005 (Nairn), Arbitrator Nairn agreed with Arbitrator Snow that the rules of the workload assignments were designed to ensure fairness and equality. However, she determined that the WRA's assessment was more limited in the scope of review than the WMG. Arbitrator Nairn noted that the factors identified in the collective agreement to assess workload assignments did not sufficiently lend themselves to an analysis on the equitability of the workload assignment: There is logic in having the WMG act as the final word on assertions of inequity that exist beyond the defined parameters in Articles 11.01. The workload resolution process is intended as an informal, expeditious mechanism providing "rough justice" regarding equitable workload assignments. Resolving "general" concerns of inequity demands both the further refinement of those factors that the parties have expressly identified as being important to the equity assessment and also a broader inquiry across parameters not defined by the collective agreement. While the fact situation before me may appear to result in inequitable treatment for the teachers in ELI (and particularly so in light of the decision regarding the Office Administration teachers), such an assessment would require a WRA to assess and determine appropriate criteria beyond those established by the parties in Article 11.01. 1 am not persuaded that such an exercise was ever intended by the parties given the express articulation of criteria in article 11. 01, the lack of any precedent value attributed to any one decision, and the fact that an award only applies for the remainder of that academic year (see Article 11.02 F6). Niagara, op.cit., para 32 14. Arbitrator Wilson was persuaded, as am I, that the equitability of the resulting assignment is not a factor that is to be considered. Rather the analysis should consider the workload factors in Article 11.01 B.1, the limits and restrictions negotiated between the parties in Article 11, and the obligations on the parties to consult before implementing changes to workload. 15. A collective agreement must be read as a whole. The Agreement, and in particular Article 11 provides significant obligations on the parties to communicate clearly the reasons for changes in a SWF, including (amongst other things) additional attributed hours, and evaluation feedback factor. For reasons that are not perfectly clear, that did not happen in this case. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 16. Both parties were given an opportunity to submit a formal opening. After that, we adopted a less formal and "give and take" process. We were able to clarify in short order their bottom-line positions. 17. The Union asserted that this resolution process is designed to rule on disputes that have at their heart the equitability of assignments to academic staff. The Union asserted that this case was representative of inappropriate distinctions between professors. 18. Specifically the union raised two issues: The allotment of time for an atypical course (on the assumption that Social Welfare SS116-AS was an "atypical" course); ii. The Union challenged the method of evaluation, and the process that led to the change in the evaluation factor on this particular standard workload form. 18. Management's response understandably took a different approach to defining the issue. Management stated that the case turned solely on whether the course dealt with an atypical situation, or not. Not surprisingly, management submitted that it did not deal with atypical situation. On the assumption that it did not, the grievance should fail. Alternatively Management deferred to the management rights provisions of the collective agreement. 19. Management submitted that it attempted to call meetings as contemplated by the Collective Agreement in Article 11.01 E 2 (iv) and 11.01 E 3. Management submitted that Professor Ward declined to participate fully in the meeting in the format that it was called. 20. In its response to Management's opening, and in the evidence, the Union spoke to three issues: The confusing manner in which the change in the Evaluation Feedback Factor was implemented, ii. Whether deserving extra consideration under Article 11.01 G2 ("atypical circumstances") or not, the actual workload was not properly considered when the reduction in the evaluation factor occurred; iii. The reduction in additional attributed hours by the College, and the College's implementation of a policy that effectively capped attributed hours. DECISION 21. The purpose of this process is to provide an efficient and timely result for the parties. Due to unavoidable circumstances there has been an unfortunate delay already. 22. The analysis to be adopted in these cases is set out clearly in the decision of Arbitrator Wilson in the Niagara case. I adopt in their entirety paragraphs 18 to 28 of his decision. These are attached as Appendix "C" to this decision. 23. As noted above, I do not base this decision on whether the assignment was inequitable. 24.1 also do not base this decision on whether the course was "atypical" as that word is understood in Article 11.01 G2. The parties provided considerable back and forth on whether this course, (now taught substantially online), was atypical. 25. The College suggested that an online course is now standard operating procedure, and cannot be considered as anything unusual. The Union asserted that there were particular demands in this mode of course delivery that took it out of the ordinary. The Union asserted that online delivery was sufficiently novel that this case warranted a decision that this mode of delivery was atypical. 26. Whether online delivery of this material was novel in 2013 is also a question that I do not need to answer to in this decision. It would be better left to the parties to discuss this issue further as to whether this form of course delivery can warrant an "atypical" description in the future. 27. What did impress me from the evidence were two things: i. The manner of change of the Evaluation Feedback Factor; ii. The evidence of Professor Ward as to the actual workload involved in the delivery of this course online. 28. Dealing with the second matter first, Professor Ward did provide persuasive evidence that the online delivery required more work, not less, in evaluation. 29. The College asserted that the hours attributed to evaluation in SS116-AS included a significant component of "In -process" evaluation. The collective agreement addresses what this means, as follows: "11.01 E 2 For the purposes of the formula" .. . (iii) `In -process evaluation and feedback' is evaluation performed within the teaching contact hour." (emphasis added) 30.The evidence also confirmed that "In -process" evaluation typically meant, for classroom delivery, the time spent by a professor assessing the participation of students in class. Given that this time is also taken into account in teaching contact hours, the College took the position that In -process evaluation for an on- line course was accounted for by the hours allocated already in lieu of direct contact, and in -class feedback. Presumably any time spent after a formal classroom session would be rolled into this consideration. 31. Professor Ward emphasized that online delivery encourages far more time- consuming interaction between professor and student. While the evidence did not delve into the reasons why students might be more willing to engage online than during class discussions, her evidence was very strong. Her experience was that the workload for on-line delivery in fact increased, not decreased. A reduction in the Evaluation Feedback Factor was in her professional estimation completely unwarranted for SS -116 -AS. 32. The other issue was the manner of implementing the change in the Evaluation Feedback Factor. This was, as noted, not communicated as clearly as warranted. The College asserted in complete good faith that there had been a change in the course outline, and that this would automatically trigger a reduction or an increase in the evaluation factor, depending upon the changes. The process, while mysterious to any outsider, was understood to be as objectively fair as possible in the circumstances. 33. The Union and Professor Ward initially asserted that there had been no change in the course outline. A review of the SWF's from 2010 to 2014 for this one course made it clear that the resources and course description were essentially identical, and unchanged. However, in 2011 the per centage allocation to evaluations did change. 34. The SS116-AS course outline for autumn 2011 provided evaluation as follows: Essay or project evaluation 40% • Routine or Assisted Evaluation 40% In -process Evaluation 20% 35.The SS116-AS course outline for autumn 2012 provided evaluation as follows: • Essay or project evaluation 25% • Routine or Assisted Evaluation 50% • In -process Evaluation 25% The change in the Evaluation scheme appears to be the sole change to this asynchronous course outline. 36. What is puzzling is that this change in 2012 course outline did not result in any change in the Evaluation Feedback Factor for an entire year. 37. The Union asserted this delay created confusion in 2013. The College asserted it had been overly fair in not implementing the warranted change on short notice in 2012 when it recognized that the course outline change warranted an Evaluation Feedback Factor change. 38.The Evaluation Feedback Factor for SS -116 -AS was reduced from .0198 to .0174 in autumn 2013. The change that was imposed in 2013 was simply communicated on the basis that the EFF changed because the course outline had changed. 39. On the same 2013 SWF, the Additional Attributed Hour that had been provided for Course SS -116 -AS was also removed. 40.A meeting of the Workload Monitoring Group occurred on June 2th 2013. The Minutes of that meeting were introduced in evidence. 41. At the WMG meeting, the change in Evaluation Feedback Factor was ascribed by management to the fact that In Process evaluation at 25 % was correct compensation for the notional time that the professor spent providing feedback. The different factor somehow was transformed by the evaluation factor "program" (quotation marks in the original WMG Minutes). 42. As In Process receives less "credit' than other types of evaluation, presumably the increase of the In -process component from 20% to 25% justified the reduction in the Evaluation Factor. 43. It is notable that In -process evaluation is defined in the collective agreement as "evaluation performed within the teaching contact hour" [(Article 11.01 E 2 (iii)]. 44. Feedback during the very same hour that the teaching occurs is understood to be a minimalist form of evaluation. The lowest numeric credit on the Evaluation Factor Chart is for a course with 100% In -process evaluation. (That Chart is attached to and forms part of Appendix II to the Local Agreement.) 45. Professor Ward submitted she was troubled about this change. Even accepting that the course outline had changed in 2012, she was puzzled why the change in the Evaluation Feedback Factor took an extra year to implement. 46. Whether this contributed to further misunderstanding or not, the Union pointed out that the SWF attached to the Local Agreement was not identical to the SWF form presented to Professor Ward by the College. The (officially -sanctioned) SWF form that is part of the Local Agreement appears to require the College to consider additional attributed hours for Evaluation Feedback. The sanctioned form appears to require the College to provide a more detailed examination of Complementary Hours. 47. The SWF utilized for SS -116 -AS in the autumn of 2013 lacked these requirements. One will never know whether the use of a less -than -perfect form contributed to the "program" decision that reduced the EFF. 48. The SWF attached as Appendix II of the Local Agreement also includes an Evaluation Factor Chart. The Chart sets out numeric evaluation factors. It includes "Valuation Codes" for the varied SWF Values. However, the Evaluation Factor Chart in the Local Agreement does not include the Valuation Code, nor the numeric factor (0.0174) delivered to Professor Ward in the SWF in question. On its face, it is not possible to ascertain how the factor of 0.0174 was achieved. 49. In sum, the process lacked the transparency the parties intended it to have. Even if the Union is to be in the position of accepting Management's final judgment, its members should be able to look at the SWF form sanctioned by the Local Agreement, and to understand how the change in Evaluation Factor was achieved. Simply relying on the "program" without some further explanation does not satisfy the process both parties have come to rely on. 50. The College took the position that it had attempted to communicate the rationale for the change to the group of professors who may have been affected. The College appears to rely on Article 11.01.E 3 of the collective agreement for its positon that it had consulted sufficiently with the group of affected teachers. 51. Professor Ward took the position that she deserved consideration of her specific concerns, and declined to participate in the group meeting. She appears to rely on Article 11.01 E 2 (iv) of the collective agreement in support of her position. 52. The result was that communication broke down on this issue. The parties' long- standing pattern of full, thorough and transparent consultation and communication with one another was interrupted on this occasion. It is no benefit to attempt to assign blame for the failure to communicate. 53. Without assessing the "equity" of the final result, a WRA can and should examine whether the process met the standard of informed discussion that the parties have themselves established. 54. Professor Ward raised a legitimate concern about the workload involved in this mode of delivery of evaluation and feedback. From the evidence she provided, it appeared clear that the workload involved in the delivery of this particular course for this particular year involved more, not less work than the standard classroom delivery. 55. The evidence provided by Professor Ward raised the issue of whether the change in the evaluation factor was appropriate. As the parties throughout committed to fairness and transparency in the review of these factors, this decision will at least have the effect of sending the parties back for the process set out in Article 11 (including the WMG) to determine whether the evaluation feedback factor should be revisited for 2014. 56.1 therefore find that the change in the workload evaluation factor, and the fashion in which it was implemented did not result in a transparent evaluation of the workload. 57.1 therefore direct that the previous workload evaluation factor of 0.0198 be restored for the year 2013. 1 urge the parties to convene another meeting to look at this, as this decision has no effect beyond this year, and does not affect other courses. I urge the parties to meet yet again to discuss whether the workload evaluation factor for course SS116-AS should be reviewed. 58. The other factor in issue at the WMG was the reduction in the Additional Attributed Hour for preparation. It was stated by management that the time allotted for alternate delivery had simply been revised to allow a maximum of 1.0 hour for the entire SWF. 59. In evidence before this arbitration, it was clear that Additional Attributed Hours (or parts thereof) had been awarded for an individual course in a previous year. It was also clear that on a previous occasion, more than one hour in total had been awarded where the course loads warranted that treatment. 60. Whether the treatment of the Additional Attributed Hour(s) was equitable or not, I do not decide. At least the communication of the College's decision on this matter was clear, and grounded in its belief that policy provided for that. I do not make any ruling on this point, and the parties can re -visit that issue if necessary in further discussions. 61. 1 remain seized if there are any issues in implementing this award. Robert C. Edwards Workload Resolution Arbitrator STANDARD WORKLOAD FORM Confederation College of AA&T A :pG �J D �s Q Health & Community Sciences (06) Teacher Name: - . , ID: 060408 Probationary: No Classification: FT Co-ordinator - Step: 0 Term: 2012F Periods Covered by SWF: Sep 6, 2012 - Dec 14, 2012 Course/Subj. ''. Identification I Asgn. Tch I Hours I PREPARATION EVALUATION FEEDBACK TOTAL HOURS Type Factor Attributed Additional I Hours Attributed Class Size Type Factor Attributed 'i Compl Hours j Hours ` References to 1 0 11.01 Article 11.01 Article 11.01 Collective ;B and C 71 D D D D E I E` E E 'D, F, G Agreement CY311-S 3.00 EB 0.6000 1.80 1.00 31 C9 0.0212 1.97 0.00 7.77 CY502 3.00 NW 1.1000 3.30 0.00 16 E3 0.0248 1.19 0.00 7.49 CY507 3.00 NW 1.1000 3.30 0.00 16 C8 0.0208 1.00 0.00 7.30 "'S51'16- S 3.00 EB 0.6000 1.80 1.00 38 C4 0.0198 2.26 0.00 8.06 Du r Cit -/i /r/z Weekly Totals 12.00 i 10.20 2.00 1 6.42 0.00 30.62 Preparation Hours/Subject = Factor' Teaching Contact Hours Evaluation Feedback Hours/Subject = Factor ` Class size ' Teaching Contact Hours Number of Different Number of Different Number of Languages 1 Course Preparations : 4 Sections: 4 of Instruction Summary of Weekly Total Assigned Teaching Contact Hours Preparation Hours1week Evaluation Feedback Hourstweek Complementary Hours (allowance/week) (Minimum 6) (11.01 (F)) Complementary Hours (assigned)/week (11.01 (D,F,G)) TOTAL THIS PERIOD SWF 12.00 12.20 6.42 6.00 6.20 42 -8� Accumulated Totals to SWF Period End Date Weekly Teaching Contact Teaching Contact Hours Days Weeks Balance- Previous SWF 0 0 0 Total this period SWF 180 71 15 TOTAL TO END DATE 180 71 15 COMPLEMENTARY FUNCTIONS FOR ACADEMIC YEAR Weekly Description Attributed Hours ASD Routine Out of -lass Student Assistance 4.00 ATD Normal Administrative Tasks 2.00 COD Course Outline Development 0.70 FW Fieldwork Supervision 4.00 MEETI Meetings 0.50 WMG Workload Monitoring Group 1.00 TOTAL 1220 STANDARD WORKLOAD FORM „ ,r -- Confederation College of AA&T �4 > ( U Health & Community Sciences (06) Teacher Name:1rox„m, ID: 060408 Probationary: No Classification: FT Co-ordinator - Step: 0 Term: 2013F Periods Covered by SWF: Course/Subj. i Asgn. PREPARATION EVALUATION FEEDBACK TOTAL Identification i Tch Hours HOURS Type Factor Attributed Additional Hours I Attributed Class Type Factor Attributed Compl Size Hours Hours References to ; 11.01 71 Article 11.01 Article 11.01 Collective Agreement 113 and C WMG D I D I D D I E E E E ID, F. G CY311 3.00 EB 0.6000 1.80 0.00 C9 0.0212 1.53 0.00 6.33 24 CY502 S 3.00 EB 0.6000 1.80 0.50 20 E3 0.0248 1.49 0.00 6.79 CY507 S SS116 `AS 3.00 3.00 EB EB 0.6000 0.6000 1.80 1.80 0.50 0.00 20 38 C8 G1 0.0208 1.25 1.98 0.00 0.00 6.55 6.78 0.0 4 7D 3 ;Z -F- F -Weekly WeeklyTotals 12.00 7.20 1.00 6.25 0.00 26.45 Preparation Hours/subject = Factor' Teaching Contact Hours Evaluation Feedback Hours/Subject = Factor * Class size * Teaching Contact Hours Number of Different Number of Different Number of Languages Course Preparations : 4 Sections: 4 lof Instruction 1 Summary of Weekly Total Assigned Teaching Contact Hours Preparation Hours/week Evaluation Feedback Hours/week Complementary Hours (allowance/week) (Minimum 6) (11.01 (F)) Complementary Hours (assigned)/week (11.01 (D,F,G)) TOTAL THIS PERIOD SWF 12.00 8.20 6.25 6.00 9.50 Accumulated Totals to SWF Period End Date Weekly Teaching Contact Teaching Contact Hours Days Weeks Balance- Previous SWF 0 0 0 Total this period SWF 180 71 15 TOTAL TO END DATE 180 71 15 COMPLEMENTARY FUNCTIONS FOR ACADEMIC YEAR Weekly Description Attributed Hours ASD - Routine Out -of -Class Student Assistance 4.00 ATD - Normal Administrative Tasks 2.00 FW - Fieldwork Supervision 8.00 MEETI - Meetings 0.50 WMG - Workload Monitoring Group 1.00 TOTAL 15.50 It C, // IN THE MATTER OF A WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATION BETWEEN: NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 242 (the "College") (the "union") AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint regarding the workload of Professor Mary Spehar a. e:e BEFORE: Matthew R. Wilson, Workload Resolution Arbitrator For the union: Sherri Rosen Martin Devitt Dave Thomson Bonnie Martel Mary Spehar For the employer: David Veres Carolyn Triemstra Jim Garner A hearing was held in Welland on April 22, 2013. DECISION 18. The starting point for this analysis is Article 11.01A, which requires the workload to be consistent with Article 11. It reads as follows: 11.01 A Each teacher shall have a workload that adheres to the provisions of this Article. 19. The total workload for a professor is set out in a weekly maximum pursuant to Article 11.01 B 1. This provision sets out certain factors to be considered in determining the workload. The S WF closely follows these factors and identifies the allocated hours for each of the factors: 11.01 B 1 Total workload assigned and attributed by the College to a teacher shall not exceed 44 hours in any week for up to 36 weeks in which there are teaching contact hours for teachers in post -secondary programs and for up to 38 weeks in which there are teaching contact hours in the case of teachers not in post -secondary programs. The balance of the academic year shall be reserved for complementary functions and professional development. Workload factors to be considered are: (i) teaching contact hours (ii) attributed hours for preparation (iii) attributed hours for evaluation and feedback (iv) attributed hours for complementary functions i 20. A teaching contact hour is defined in Article 11.01 B 2 of the collective agreement: 11.01 B 2 A "teaching contact hour" is a College scheduled teaching hour assigned to the teacher by the College. 21. There are a number of limitations on the workload. While it is unnecessary to review all of these limitations, it suffices to say that the SWF is measured against these limitations to ensure compliance with the collective agreement. For example, Article 11.011 sets out the maximum teaching contact hours in a week: 11.01 I Teaching contact hours for a teachcr in post -secondary programs shall not exceed 18 in any week. Teaching contact hours for a teacher not in post- secondary programs shall not exceed 20 in any week. 22. Article 11.01 K 3 sets out the maximum teaching contact hours for the academic year: 11.01 K 3 Teaching contact hours shall not exceed 648 teaching contact hours per academic year for a teacher in post -secondary programs or 760 teaching contact hours per academic year for a teacher not in post -secondary programs. 23. Finally, Article 11.01 D 1 sets out the ratio of assigned teaching contact hours attributed to hours for preparation and Article 11.01 E 1 sets out the ratio of assigned teaching contact hours attributed to hours for evaluation/feedback. These are weighted formulas that take into consideration particular features of a workload assignment. 24. The remaining factor identified in Article 11.01 BI is complementary functions. Article 11.01 F 1 addresses complementary functions: 11.01 F 1 Complementary functions appropriate to the professional role of the teacher may be assigned to a teacher by the College. Hours for such functions shall be attributed on an hour for hour basis. An allowance of a minimum of six hours of the 44 hour maximum weekly total workload shall be attributed as follows: four hours for routine out -of -class assistance to individual students two hours for normal administrative tasks. The teacher shall inform his/her students of availability for out -of -class assistance in keeping with the academic needs of students. 25. These are recorded on the SWF as complementary hours. 26. Collectively, the hours recorded on the SWF is a rough averaging of the overall workload. 27. A college professor's teaching workload must be consistent with the provisions of the collective agreement. Article 11 sets out very specific categories to measure the Workload and also certain maximums that are allowed to be assigned to a professor. These categories take into consideration the nuances of course assignments including whether course assignments are new courses that have not been taught before or repeat courses that have been taught by the professor. Obviously, the former would require more preparation time to become familiar with the subject matter. The latter will usually require less time because the professor will not only be familiar with the subject matter, but also will have prepared at least some of the teaching materials. 28. Additionally, Article 11.01 E I also takes into consideration the types of evaluation/feedback required for the particular course. Certain types of evaluation will consume more time for the professor. This is reflected in the ratios that have been negotiated by the parties.