HomeMy WebLinkAboutClassification Review Committee Final Report (Swan Report) 78-07ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS OF
COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
AND
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION
FINAL REPORT OF THE
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Herbert Jackson
Sean O'Flynn
Kenneth P. Swan, Chairman
July, 1978.
In the interim report of the majority of the
Committee, we set out a proposed new classification definition
for the Instructor classification and invited comments by the
parties on that definition. We received, in due course, a number
of comments, all of which we have carefully considered. A brief
review of those submissions would appear to be appropriate.
The Union's brief re-stated its original position that
only a complete eradication of the Instructor category would
be an acceptable solution to the difficulties being experienced,
but went on to analyze the proposed definition in a thorough and
helpful way. The Union had five main concerns with our defini-
tion, and it is easiest simply to set these out in the words of
the Union brief:
"There are five areas of the draft definition that
are of considerable concern to OPSEU.
1 In the first sentence of the draft definition
(page 31 of the Interim Report) reference is
made to 'clearly established comprehensive
behavioural objectives'. While we think we
understand the intention behind these words, it
should be noted that most if not all courses of
study in the college system can be said to have
formal behavioural objectives. We are confident
that it is not the committee's intention that
the instructor classification be used in every
type of program taught in the community college
system.
Some further definition is necessary to make
clear that the reference is to pre-packaged
courses. Similarly the phrases that follow,
'or prepared courses of instruction or according
to prescribed instructional formats' are not
sufficiently exclusive to rule out the use of the
instructor classification where it is not appro-
priate.
2. The first sentence of the proposed definition
concludes: 'and limited to instruction directed
to the acquisition of a skill or technique'.
2
This part of the definition needs to be considerably
more precise. It could be argued that all community
college programs are aimed at the development of
skills, yet the committee is seeking, we believe,
some degree of exclusivity for the instructor classi-
fication. What the committee seems to have in mind
is a skill the teaching of which requires considerable
practical demonstration by the teacher, and considerable
hands-on practice by the student. If this is, in fact,
the committee's intention, it should be clearly expressed.
3.The second sentence of the definition is also of
concern: 'Notwithstanding such prescription, the
INSTRUCTOR is responsible for and has the freedom to
provide a learning environment which makes effective
use of resources provided or identified, work experience,
field trips, etc., and to select suitable learning
materials from those provided or identified to facili-
tate the attainment by the students of the educational
objectives of the assigned courses.' While the union
appreciates the intention behind the statement of
academic freedom which is contained in this sentence,
it is our belief that making the instructor responsible
for the effectiveness of the learning environment of
his or her classes is not reasonable given the require-
ment (which we believe to be essential) that an instructor
must be working from prepared courses. This sentence
can, and should, be omitted from the definition.
4.The heading for the list of duties and responsibilities
which in the draft definition reads, 'The INSTRUCTOR'S
duties and responsibilities include' runs the risk of
being construed by some to mean that an individual
instructor could be required to perform all of these
duties as part of a single semester's assignment. Such
a requirement would be unreasonable. The heading should
be amended.
5.The final paragraph of the draft definition lists several
ancillary duties for instructors, which appear to be
acceptable. However, the first part of the sentence
is too general. 'Other activities ancillary to the
provision of instruction' should be defined to limit
them to the type of activity specified."
Upon reflection, we see merit in the first two
concerns raised by the union. We did, indeed, intend to
identify a restricted scope for the Instructor category, and
we had sought a form of words which would have that effect. We
can understand the Union's concern (particularly in light of
3
some comments, which we discuss below, in St. Lawrence College's
submission) and we have therefore attempted to clarify our
definition. The other observations by the Union, however, are
not, in our view, matters for.serious concern.
given a fair construction of the language used, there is no
likelihood of the dire consequences predicted by the Union.
Attached to the Union brief is a very effective
discussion of the definition by Mr. Bill Kuehnbaum, President
of Local 655 of the Union. To a certain extent, Mr. Kuehnbaum
covers the same grounds as the Union's brief, and to that extent
our comments above apply. In addition, however, we feel con-
strained to remark that the argument Mr. Kuehnbaum makes
against the proposed definition is only valid if one divides
the definition up into tiny fragments and assails each one at
a time. For proper legal construction of collective agreement
language, a provision must be used as a whole. As a whole, the
definition is simply not susceptible of some of the extreme
reductions to absurdity of which Mr. Kuehnbaum warns.
Two other briefs require mention. Northern College
recommended that we include the formula "under the direction
of a teaching master" in the definition, and we agree. In
addition, however, both Northern College and St. Lawrence
College have argued for a wide applicability of the definition.
Northern College's brief says:
Our concurrence with the class definition is
also on the basis that "skill or technique" includes
all academic subjects and the clinical portion of
nursing student training.
St. Lawrence College observes:
...a review of their original briefs as well as a
We consider that,
4
review of the interim award would have us believe that
we would be within both the intent and spirit of the
principles involved in your award if Instructors were
utilized in a teaching situation for any course where
the Master is the designated leader and is responsible
for a number of sections of a course that he/she
teaches with the assigned instructor/s and where the
Teaching Master is responsible for the specific course
objectives.
With respect, we are somewhat dismayed that these
two institutions appear to view our definition as one applicable
to teaching in all areas of instruction. Our comments on
pages 14-15 and page 25 of the Interim Report make it clear that
we did not intend tocreatea classification which could be
applied in any discipline, at any level of instruction and in
any pedagogical model. We intended rather a limitation to
what the Union calls "hands-on" skill training, and related
instructional methods, and the use of the expression "and
limited to instruction directed to the acquisition of a skill
or technique" ought to have made this clear. Perhaps the
problem is caused by our inadvertent use of the word "or"
instead of "and" in the fourth line of page 31 of the Interim
Report? If so, we wish to correct any misconception which may
have arisen from this editorial error, and the word "or" in
that line should be replaced by "and", so that the text and the
classification definition coincide.
We turn finally to the amendments which might be
made to the definition. We agree that the expression "clearly
established comprehensive behavioural objectives" is too vague
to be a reliable guide to the application of the definition,
and we have decided to remove it from the form of words we
have chosen. The Union's proposed replacement wording is,
however, too rigid for effective use. The wording we have
settled upon is designed to create a classification dedicated
to instruction at a level where the academic preparations and
decisions have been made in advance, and the role of the teacher
is limited to supervision of the learning process. We consider
that, at a certain level of sophistication of subject matter,
this sort of relationship becomes impossible, and it is for
this reason that we have introduced the limitation to instruction
directed to the acquisition of "a skill or technique", as our
original definition provided.
After much resort to dictionaries and other refer-
ences, we are still of the view that "skill or technique"
describes the sort of learned aptitude which we think Instructors
might be employed to impart. "Craft"is also a word which
captures the meaning we wish to convey, although most dictionaries
define "craft" by use of the word "skill". In order that we may
not be misunderstood, however, we have decided to use the
adjective "manipulative" to convey the meaning we intend: we
think that this will produce a certain redundancy, but that
redundancy is probably preferable to a disputed interpretation.
Our new classification definition, therefore, is as
follows:
CLASS DEFINITION - INSTRUCTOR
The INSTRUCTOR classification applies to those
teaching positions where the duties and responsibilities
of the incumbent are limited to that portion of the
total spectrum of academic activities related to the
provision of instruction to assigned groups of students
through prepared courses of instruction and according
to prescribed instructional formats; and limited to
instruction directed to the acquisition of a manipula-
tive skill or technique; and under the direction of a teaching
master. Notwithstanding such p rescription, the
INSTRUCTOR is responsible for and has the
U
freedom to provide a learning environment which makes
effective use of the resources provided or identified,
work experience, field trips, etc., and to select
suitable learning materials from those provided or
identified to facilitate the attainment by the students
of the educational objectives of the assigned courses.
The INSTRUCTOR'S duties and responsibilities
include:
-ensuring student awareness of course objectives,
instructional approach, and evaluation systems;
- carrying out regularly scheduled instruction accord-
ing to the format prescribed for the course, including
as appropriate classroom, laboratory, shop, field,
seminar, computer-assisted, individualized learning,
and other instructional techniques;
-tutoring and academic counselling of students in the
assigned groups;
- evaluating student progress/achievement, assuming
responsibility for the overall assessment of the
students' work within the assigned course, and
maintaining records as required;
-consulting with the Teaching Masters responsible for
the courses of instruction on the effectiveness of
the instruction in attaining the stated program
objectives.
In addition, the INSTRUCTOR may, from time to
time, be called upon to contribute to other activities
ancillary to the provision of instruction, such as
procurement and control of instructional supplies and
maintenance and control of instructional equipment.
We do not express any opinion as to whether or not
any particular teaching area will fit under this definition.
We have not been provided with sufficient data to make such
a conclusion possible, and it would in any event be beyond
our mandate. The application of the definition is a matter
for mutual administration by the parties, including resort to
the grievance and arbitration procedure as necessary. If it
is not already clear in the agreement that classification
issues are subject to grievance and arbitration, then we make
7
such a provision a part of our final award.
Finally, we have left undecided the timing of the
implementation of the new classification scheme. In our Interim
Report, we suggested that there were strong arguments in favour
of September 1, 1978, and nothing in the submissions we have
received has changed our view. We therefore award that the new
classification definition should be effective September 1, 1978
and that individual employees shall be entitled to be compensated,
as of that date, in accordance with the salary scale of the
classification appropriate to their duties and on that scale
according to their qualifications and experience. We anticipate
that, at some colleges, the mechanics of reclassification may
take some time. We therefore award that actual reclassification
of present Instructors may be delayed until March 1, 1979,
provided that, upon reclassification, salary and benefits are
paid at the appropriate rate retroactive to September 1, 1978.
By March 1, 1979, each Instructor in the CAAT system shall
have received formal notice in writing of his or her classifica-
tion status, and any time limits specified in the collective
agreement for the filing of grievances Shall begin on receipt of
that notice.
We conclude the deliberations of this committee
with an observation we have made_many times before. We are
painfully aware that we have produced no panacea for the classi-
fication problems in the CAAT system. We are not even sure
that a satisfactory solution can ever be found. We have urged
upon the parties, however, a broader approach to these difficulties,
which is set out on pages 33-34 of our Interim Award. We can
8
only suggest once again that they consider our recommendations,
and attempt to find a rational solution to the classification
issue through a broad review of academic salary structures.
Mr. Sean O'Flynn continues to dissent from the
findings of the majority, for the reasons set out in his
minority report. The majority are grateful, however, for his
continued participation in the deliberations of the Committee.
tip, F J,
Herbert Jackson
Kenneth P. Swan,
Chairman