Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMorgan 14-11-221 IN A MATTER PURSUANT TO THE COLLEGES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2008 BETWEEN: FANSHAWE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY (“Employer”) - and – ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (“Union”) RE: WORKLOAD COMPLAINT OF M. MORGAN ARBITRATOR: Jasbir Parmar On Behalf of the Employer: Robert Atkinson, Counsel Jerry Tapley, Labour Relations Consultant Mary Pierce, Chair, Lawrence Kinlin School of Business John Hay, Human Resources Assistant On Behalf of the Union: Tim Hannigan, Counsel Murray Morgan, Professor Mark Feltham, Chief Steward, OPSEU Local 110 This matter was heard on November 12, 2014, in London, ON. 2 I. BACKGROUND 1. This decision deals with a workload complaint filed by Professor Murray Morgan. 2. The complaint relates to the International Business Management (IBM) Program, which is part of the Lawrence Kinlan School of Business. There approximately 17 programs offered in this school. They include a variety of two-year diploma programs, undergraduate certificate programs, and graduate certificate programs. The IBM program falls in the latter category, and has been offered by the College since 2008. 3. Professor Morgan has taught in the IBM program since 2008. The program includes twelve courses, and Professor Morgan has taught about six of them. The two courses at issue are International Trade Research (MKTG–6019–01) and International Trade Management (MGMT-6071-01). For the majority of the time these courses have been offered, they have been taught by Professor Morgan. 4. Professor Morgan’s concern lies with his work assignment for Winter 2015. In that term, he was assigned to teach one section of both of the courses at issue, and two sections of an introductory marketing course. It is asserted that the hours attributed to the two courses at issue are not an adequate reflection of the necessary work. 5. Relevant information was provided by Professor Morgan and by Ms. Pierce, Chair of the Lawrence Kinlin School of Business. II. ANALYSIS 6. The parties are in agreement the issue is whether, pursuant to section 11.01G2 of the collective agreement, there are “atypical circumstances affecting the workload of [Professor Morgan] which are not adequately reflected in Article 11”. 7. This language indicates that the presence of atypical circumstances must be considered in the context of Article 11 as whole. Article 11 sets out a complex formula based on a variety of 3 different factors reflecting the agreed approach of determining workload. As noted by Arbitrator McLean in OPSEU – and – Centennial College ( McLean, March 16, 2012): As a result of the workload system, it is not normally helpful to compare the amount of work a teacher actually does with the amount of work that is set out on the teacher’s SWF. There will be workload winner and losers. That is the nature of the system adopted by the parties. 8. In other words, the workload system is not driven by the amount of time a specific teacher spends in relation to a particular course. The system recognizes some may spend more, and some may spend less. I note this because while I accept Professor Morgan’s information about the amount of time he has spent on one of the courses in the previous term, I have given little weight to that information in the circumstances of this case. W hile it is clear that Professor Morgan is a dedicated, hardworking professional, Article 11 is not about an assessment of the individual. 9. Rather than on a specific teacher, the parties have agreed the focus is on the “circumstances” of a particular assignment, and how those “circumstances” impact workload. Only if those circumstances are atypical, and only if the impact of those circumstances affects workload in a manner not reflected in Article 11, does the collective agreement mandate that additional hours are to be attributed to that assignment. 10. In this case, the Union asserts the circumstances of the two courses at issue are atypical. In support of this, they point to IBM’s affiliation with a third party, FITT. FITT is an organization that provides a third party designation. According to FITT rules, this designation is available to students who can demonstrate they have completed certain courses with an accredited affiliate, and who present two projects which meet a standard of 65% as marked by FITT. 11. The College is one such accredited affiliate. The courses required to be completed by FITT are some of the 12 courses required for the IBM certificate. The course projects completed in the two courses at issue are the types of projects eligible to be presented to FITT 4 to meet FITT’s project requirement. It is asserted that a greater amount of time guiding and presenting feedback is required to ensure the students are able to complete a project that would be marked by FITT at 65% or better. 12. I do not accept that this affiliation is an atypical factor. There are 16 other third party associations with whom the School of Business is affiliated. Students complete their course requirements as determined by the College, and then deal with the third party to obtain some further designation, which often requires additional exams/projects. The FITT association is just one of those 16. 13. Furthermore, I find that this factor does not impact workload in a manner that is not reflected by the standard formula. The work assignment is to teach the courses, in accordance with the learning outcomes specified by the College. The fact that a student may utilize some of the work completed in the course for other purposes (such as seeking a FITT designation) date does not change the nature of the work assignment. 14. There are two factors that highlight the distinction between completion of the two courses on the one hand and the FITT designation process on the other. First, the 65% level of performance is not a requirement of the course, but only a requirement for the FITT designation. It was not suggested that a learning outcome of the course is that all students be able to achieve a 65% or greater score in accordance with FITT marking standards. Second, FITT does not require that the assignment presented to it is actually the project that was completed in the course. As such, even the though the College may be an accredited affiliate, their accreditation and FITT’s recognition of a student’s completion of these two courses at the College is not premised on the courses having project requirements that meet the FITT standards “as is”. Individuals are free to take the projects completed in the courses and alter them to any degree they wish before presenting them to FITT. From a student’s perspective, it may be great that in completing these two courses to a satisfactory standard for the courses, 5 the student will have produced a project that will, guaranteed, meet the FITT standards. However, as noted by Ms. Pierce, the courses are not designed to effect such a guarantee. They are designed only to meet the learning outcomes as set by the College. 15. The Union also asserted that there were a variety of factors of how this course was taught that constituted atypical circumstances. They pointed to the fact the projects were done in groups of a maximum of two (resulting in more projects which must be assessed), the assignments were based on a ‘building block’ approach, and the projects involved any number of different international countries. 16. I do not find that any of these constitute atypical circumstances. As noted by Ms. Pierce, there are other courses that involve similar size groups (or even smaller) for projects and course assignments that follow the ‘building block’ approach, both in the IBM program and in other programs in the School of Business. As for the varied subject content of the projects, I expect that is a factor in any number of academic areas where students are permitted some freedom in choosing their topics. 17. Another factor the Union asserted constituted an atypical circumstance is the fact that a very high proportion of the students are international students. Professor Morgan noted that these students come with varied educational backgrounds in respect of research skills and thus a greater amount of work is required in order to bring them all to the expected level. 18. I do not accept that this is an atypical circumstance. The entry requirement for the IBM program is completion of a degree or diploma in any subject area. I agree that varying international academic approaches would make for a student body with variable skills. However, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that this variability would only manifest itself in terms of research skills, constituting an atypical circumstance for the two research courses at issue. This variety would be a factor for all the courses in the IBM program, and even other graduate programs in the School of Business, many of whom have a similar proportion of international 6 students. As such, it would not be an atypical circumstance. Rather, it would be a typical circumstance for many different programs in the School of Business. 19. I note that some time was spent by both parties addressing the fact that for years Professor Morgan has taught these same courses without challenging the attributed hours, and the fact that in one semester, the Chair granted some additional hours for one of the courses at Professor Morgan’s request. Interestingly, both parties suggested the hours were previously accepted or additional hours were previously granted because any change would not have resulted in Professor Morgan reaching the threshold were overtime would become a factor. I have not found it necessary to address these submissions, on the basis there is insufficient evidence to conclude there are in fact atypical circumstances for these courses, regardless of prior treatment. 20. In summary, having considered the parties’ submissions, I find the test under Article 11.01G2 has not been met in this case. III. DISPOSITION 21. The workload complaint is dismissed. Dated this 22nd day of November 2014. ___________________ JASBIR PARMAR