HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 91-06-18 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
FANSHAWE COLLEGE
IHereinafter referred to as the College)
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION
(Hereinafter referred to as the Union)
AND IN THE MATTER OF A:UNIONGRIEVANCE (OPSEU FILE NO. 89D310)
BOARD OF ARBITRATION: Gail Brent
Rene St. Onge, College Nominee
Jane Grimwood, Union Nominee ·
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE COLLEGE: D. Brent Labord, Counsel
Ingrid Hobbs, Personnel Officer
S. Lancaster, Chairperson Office &
Administrative Studies
FOR THE UNION: Ian Roland, Counsel
Gary Fordyce, Chief Steward
Les Pierce
Harold Coon
Ken Pommer
Hearing held in London, Ontario on February 14, 1991.
Written Submissions received March 19 and April 8, 1991.
DECISION
The grievance (Ex. 1), dated August 4, 1989, is set out below:
The Union grieves that the College violated Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 8,
12 et al of the Collective Agreement when the College's Board of
Governors approved the College's 1989-90 Budget to substitute
support staff for teaching positions in the Law and Security
Administration Program.
As remedy the Union seeks that the College recognize these fieldwork
hours as teaching contact hours and that the College credit the
individuals doing this fieldwork supervision with teaching contact
hours and attributed hours as required under the collective
agreement.
2
Ken Pommer was identified as the individual whose rights might be
affected by the outcome of this grievance. Mr. Pommer was in attendance and
indicated that he did not wish to have standing as a party.
FACTS
Rather than call witnesses, the parties chose to file relevant documents
and to outline the undisputed facts on which they were relying. We are very
grateful to the parties for adopting that procedure because, as can be seen
from this award, the factual matters are substantial and days of hearing were
saved through this method. What follows is that outline as related to us.
The grievance involves three courses in the Law and Security Administra-
tion (Police) and (General) programs: Laws 105 Field Observation, Laws 305
Field Placement, and Laws 316 Field Placement. Both Law and Security Admin-
istration (Police) and (General) are two year programs. The course offerings
in them overlap to a great extent. Laws 105 is offered in Semester 1 of both
programs; Laws 305 is offered in the Police program; and Laws 316 in the
General program. The course descriptions for these three courses as taken
from the 1988-90 calendar (Ex. 5) are set out below:
LAWS 105
FIELD OBSERVATION
A direct exposure to law enforcement organizations such as the
Ontario Police College, Police Departments, County and District
Courts, Provincial Criminal Courts, and Correctional Institutions by
way of group visits as well as individual participation with
practising criminal counsel in the lower courts, etc.
LAWS 305
FIELD PLACEMENT
The participation of the student in a number of approved and
supervised working situations with the police, department stores,
industry and institutions whereby the student will develop the
ability to utilize theory acquired through his professional studies.
LAWS 316
FIELD PLACEMENT
The participation of the student in a number of approved and
3
supervised working situations in rotation with law enforcement
activities at department stores, industry, government and correc-
tional institutions whereby the student will be able to apply the
law enforcement theory acquired through his professional studies.
In the 1990-92 calendar (Ex. 6) there is only one Law and Security
Administration program with two majors; police and general. The three
courses outlined above are still offered to the same students and are still
described in the same way.
It is agreed that, regardless of anything contained in any course
documentation to the contrary, both police and general students must take
Laws 105 as a prerequisite for Laws 305 and Laws 316 respectively. The three
courses were first taught in 1972-73, and were set up by Les Pierce, a former
police officer who began teaching at the College in 1970. Mr. Pierce was the
program co-ordinator and the sole full-time teacher for the first few years.
In 1981 he was joined by Harold Coon, who was also a former police officer.
Mr. Coon took over responsibility for Laws 105 and was also a full-time
faculty member. Mr. Pierce continued to take responsibility for Laws 305 and
316, and both he and Mr. Coon also taught other law courses. Following the
change complained of in the grievance there was no faculty member assigned to
Laws 105, 305 and 316.
In 1986 Standard Workload Forms (SWF) were instituted for faculty
members. Mr. Coon's SWF for September, 1987 to January, 1988 (Ex. 13 part)
shows that he was listed as teaching two sections of Laws 105 with three
contact hours per section and that it was an Essay Project Course. The SWF
also shows that there was a complementary Hours Allowance of 4.9 per week
associated with the two sections of Laws 105. The reorganization which gave
rise to the grievance was first implemented in the period September to
December, 1989 (see SWF dated May, 1989). Laws 105 no longer appears as a
4
course taught by Mr. Coon on the relevant SWF; however, two hours are assigned
for LASA field work evaluation.
Mr. Pierce's SWF for September, 1987 to January, 1988 (Ex. 14 partl shows
that he taught both Laws 305 and 316. Four contact hours were assigned for
the former and three for the latter. Travel time in connection with the
fieldwork assignments was shown as complementary hours. The SWF for September
to December, 1989 shows that Laws 305 and 316 no longer appear as courses for
Mr. Pierce, and that he has been alloted 2.5 hours for Field Work Evaluation.
None of the three courses with which we are concerned take place in
classrooms at the College. All are fieldwork courses which require the
students to attend at locations off the College campus in order to observe or
to experience certain things related to Law and Security Administration.
The 1988-89 course information sheet for Laws 105 lex. 7) contains the
same course description as that reproduced above from the calendar. In
addition it provides the following information:
Offered By - OFFICE & ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES DIVISION
Duration: 3.0 hours per week
30 weeks
90.0 hours in total
NOTE: The hours, weeks and totals may vary somewhat.
Prerequisites: None
Co-Requisites: None
Course Objectives
1. To familiarized the student with the various law enforce-
ment agencies through an ongoing series of visits to
Courts of Justice, Police Departments, etc.
2. To experience the application of classroom theories and
techniques in a practical manner.
5
3. To assist the student in the selection of a career.
Teaching/Learning Methodology
1. Field Trips
2. Audio-visual presentations
3. Guest lecturers
4. Dialogue and discussion
Required Student Resources
To be provided by the student:
1. Active participation.
2. Funds necessary to finance certain field trips and to
cover all personal expenses.
3. Dress clothing and protective clothing.
College Supplied Resources
To be provided by the College:
1. Supervision and escort.
2. Guest lecturers.
3. Audio-visual equipment and materials.
4. Identification Badge (on loan)
Method of Evaluation
The weightings of the components will be to the following maxima:
Typewritten reports - 45%
Active participation - 45%
Attendance - 10% (less one-tenth for each absence)
Minimum requirements for completion of course:
1. Attendance on a regular basis.
2. Active participation during visits and discussions.
3. Completion of typed report and assessment of visit within
seven days of each visit.
The information sheet for that course in 1990-91 (Ex. 8) is identical to the
one shown above except for the following changes. Between the "Course
Objectives" and the "Teaching/Learning Methodology" sections the following is
inserted:
General Education Component
Integrated throughout the Laws courses are a number of related
general education components, i.e. Ethics, History, Human Relations,
Problem solving, Verbal and Written Communication.
The "Method of Evaluation" section has been amended to read:
The weightings of the components will be to the following maxima:
Typewritten reports - 60%
(less minimum 10% for late submissions)
Courts and Police Station Observations Sessions - 40%
(less one-tenth for each absence)
We were informed that Laws 105 students attend primarily the Provincial
Courts and the London Police Station. Occasionally they may go to the Aylmer
Police College or to higher courts. The students are obliged to dress
appropriately and to conduct themselves properly. They are given specific
assignments for each visit. There are approximately 26 visits in the 30 week
course (roughly 21 to courts and 5 to the police).
Both before and after the change Mr. Coon assigned students particular
projects for study during a visit; for example, a student might be asked to
observe the role of the Crown. The students are responsible for being at the
courthouse before the start of court in the morning. Before the grieved
change Mr. Coon would be there to assist them in selecting which of the five
Provincial Courts to attend. Now Mr. Pommer, a member of the support staff,
is there to do this. The students then observe and write reports which are
submitted for evaluation.
When Mr. Coon attended at the courts he would arrive between 9:00 and
9:30 to see what trials were going to take place. The students would arrive
by 9:45 and he would meet with them to discuss where to go and what courts to
attend. He would stay until 11:30 or so, moving from court to court, in order
to deal with issues the students wanted to raise and with any problems they
wanted to discuss. During the course of the morning there would be a regular
exchange of information between the students and Mr. Coon. After the change
7
Mr. Pommer has gone to the court between 9:00 and 9:30 in order to see what
was going on and to be ready to meet the students at 9:45 when he discusses
with them where to go. Mr. Pommer stays at the courthouse until 11:30, during
which time he visits the courts and makes himself available for students who
have problems. We were told that, had he testified, Mr. Pommer would have
said that he knows his role is that of a support staff member, and therefore
unless really pressed he does not discuss matters of substance with the
students; he will explain other things to students if asked. Mr. Pommer takes
attendance at the courthouse just as Mr. Coon did, and passes the record on
to Mr. Coon to use in the evaluation process. Mr. Pommer deals with students
who are inappropriately dressed and ensures that the students do not disrupt
the court.
At the London Police Force the students receive lectures from senior
police officers. The subject matter of those lectures is arranged in advance
through consultation between the College and the Force. Before the grieved
change Mr. Coon would attend with the students to take attendance, to
introduce the speakers, to stimulate discussion by posing questions if
necessary, and to thank the speaker. The students write reports which are
turned in for evaluation. After the change Mr. Pommer performed all of the
functions at the police station which were previously performed by Mr. Coon.
Before the grieved change all of the students' reports would be turned in
to a faculty member. Following the change the reports are turned in to a
support staff person who passes them on to the faculty member for evaluation.
The support staff person, Mr. Pommer, first reads through the reports to see
if the students are identifying any problems with those areas for which he is
responsible.
8
Before September, 1989 Laws 105 did not meet in a classroom. The
students in Laws 105 were the same ones that Mr. Coon taught in other courses
so in one of those other courses he would inform students of their respon-
sibilities in 105 and pass on any other relevant information to them about the
course. After the grieved change the same procedure is followed by Mr. Coon
to inform the Laws 105 students.
Before the grieved change Mr. Coon would contact the police force and,
if necessary, the court administration to ensure that arrangements were made.
Since the initial work in instituting the course was done, the making of the
arrangements had become relatively automatic. Now Mr. Pommer does this.
Before the change if any academic problems arose during a visit Mr. Coon
would solve them on the spot. After the change all academic problems are
referred back to a faculty member. Prior to the change being implemented
Ms. Lancaster, the Chairperson of the department, discussed with Mr. Pommer
both the position and his role.
The Course Information Sheet for Laws 305 for 1988-89 (Ex. 9) contains
the same course description that has already been reproduced from the
calendar. In addition, the following information is set out:
Offered By - OFFICE & ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES DIVISION
Duration: 3.0 hours per week 30 weeks
90.0 hours in total
NOTE: The hours, weeks and totals shown may vary somewhat.
Prerequisites: None
Co-Requisites: None
Course Objectives
1. To experience daily duties and shifts with various law
9
enforcement agencies through an ongoing series of
scheduled rotating placements.
2. To test the application of classroom theories and tests in
a practical "hands-on" manner.
3.To acquire further skills supplementing the knowledge
learned in class.
4. To reinforce the student's selection of a career.
Teaching/Learning Methodology
On-site application of classroom theory.
Required Student Resources
To be provided by the student:
1. Active participation.
2. Transportation within the London area.
3. Dress clothing and protective clothing.
To be provided by the College:
1. Placements arranged on rotation.
2. Supervision and liaison.
3. Identification Badge (on loan).
Method of Evaluation
The weightings of the components will be to the following maxima:
Typewritten reports - 45%
Active participation - 45%
Attendance - 10% (less one-tenth for each day absent)
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETION OF COURSE:
1. Attendance on a regular basis as scheduled.
2. Active and willing participation at each placement.
3.Completion of typewritten report and evaluation within
seven days of completion of placement at each location.
The course information sheet for Laws 305 in 1990-91 (Ex. 10) is
identical to that issued in 1989-90 save for the following. After point 4
under "Course Objectives" the following appears:
General Education Component
Integrated throughout the Laws courses are a number of related
10
general education components, i.e. Ethics, History, Human Relations,
Problem solving, Verbal and Written Communication.
The method of evaluation has also been changed:
Typewritten reports - 40%
(less minimum 10% for late submission)
Active participation - 30%
(based on participating agency report)
Presence and Observation at each scheduled placement - 30%
(less one-tenth for each day absent)
The 1989-90 course information sheet for Laws 316 (Ex. 11) is virtually
identical to that for Laws 305 (Ex. 9) save for the fact that on the former
Laws 105 is listed as a prerequisite, and the course description conforms to
that found in the calendar under Laws 316. Similarly, the 1990-91 course
information sheet for Laws 315 (Ex. 12) contains the same amendments that have
been noted above in connection with the Laws 305 sheet for 1990-91 (Ex. 10).
Laws 305 and 316 are courses where the students are assigned to various
agencies to work alongside people who are engaged in police or security work.
The agencies co-operate with the College on a voluntary basis and can stop
their participation at any time. Laws 305 is for those in the police program.
The students are assigned to five agencies: O.P.P., London Police, R.C.M.P.,
U.W.0. campus police, and the Elgin-Middlesex Regional Detention Centre. Each
student goes to each placement during the year. The time that the student
spends in each placement varies. Law 316 is for those in the general program.
The students are assigned to six agencies: O.P.P., R.C.M.P., U.W.O. campus
police, Elgin-Middlesex Regional Detention Centre, the two London Bay stores,
and G.M. security. As in Laws 305 each student goes to each placement. Both
courses require the students to file reports. Both require the students to be
away from the College during some regular classroom hours and to pick up those
classes which they miss because of the placements.
11
Before the grieved change Mr. Pierce would contact the placement agencies
to confirm that they were prepared to carry on with the arrangements for yet
another year. He would then manually prepare a schedule of student place-
ments; the schedules would be given to both the students and the host agencies
at the beginning of the third semester. Since the change Mr. Pommer contacts
the agencies to confirm participation. The schedules are now prepared by
computer by the College using the information given to it by Mr. Pommer. The
schedules are distributed as they were before the change.
Because of the nature of the placements the students must undergo
security clearances. Before the grieved change the information necessary for
such clearances was handled by Mr. Pierce; Mr. Pommer now does it. If
students cannot be security cleared, it is necessary to find them alternate
placements. Prior to the grieved change Mr. Pierce made those arrangements;
Mr. Pommer does it now in consultation with Mr. Pierce.
There was never any classroom time scheduled for Laws 305 and 316.
Before the change Mr. Pierce would take some time during another scheduled
class to explain the course to the students; included in that explanation
would be expected conduct and demeanour, report writing, grading and evalua-
tion, oaths of secrecy required, etc. This has not changed and Mr. Pierce
still performs those tasks in the same manner. Before the change Mr. Pierce
also distributed to the students their attendance sheets (Ex. 15), which must
be signed by their supervisors at the placement location; since the change
Mr. Pommer gives the sheets to the agencies to complete and return either
through the students on their return to the College or by giving them directly
to him. Prior to the grieved change Mr. Pierce would visit each student in
each placement location to ensure that everything was working well from the
12
points of view of both the students and the agencies. Since the change
Mr. Pommer visits each agency periodically, except for the out of town O.P.P.
placements; each student is no longer visited at each agency. The purpose of
the visit is to see if the agency is experiencing any difficulty; if there
happens to be a student present Mr. Pommer will speak to the student to see if
there are any problems. Before the change Mr. Pierce could receive calls from
the agencies if there were problems and he would deal with them; for example,
if a student did not attend the agency would call and Mr. Pierce would try to
determine the reason. Since the change Mr. Pommer handles the problem calls
from the agencies and deals with them. If agencies are critical of a
student's performance they will make a report to that effect; agencies also
submit reports on the students which form the basis of the evaluation. Prior
to the grieved change Mr. Pierce would receive those reports directly; since
the change Mr. Pommer can be given the report to pass on to Mr. Pierce. Prior
to the change Mr. Pierce would also receive the students' reports directly;
now they are submitted to Mr. Pommer, who reviews them quickly to determine if
there are any problems with the placements noted and then passes them on to
Mr. Pierce for evaluation. The students' reports are returned to them and
dealt with in another class taught by Mr. Pierce just as they always were.
There is a job evaluation manual for the support staff employed by the
Colleges; the manual is the Colleges' unilateral creation. It contains a
classification scheme which is applied to all support staff jobs regardless of
membership in the bargaining unit. Mr. Pommer is classified by the College as
a Support Services Officer B (see Exs. 16A & 16BI.
The relevant portions of Mr. Pommer's position description (Ex. 22) is
set out below:
Position Title and Department:
Fieldwork Liaison Officer (Part-time)
Reports to (Title and Department)
Chair - Office & Administrative Studies
A. POSITION SUMMARY ...
Under general supervision, to organize field visits for
students in the Law and Security program. To accompany
groups of first year students to the Court House or to
Police Headquarters and to visit individual placements for
second year students.
B. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Organize field visits for 1st and 2nd year students. 10%
Accompany groups of 1st year students on visits. 33%
Monitor attendance and field trips. 4%
Monitor individual second year placements. 33%
Liaise with program faculty. 10%
Liaise with security agencies. 10%
C. JOB DIFFICULTY ...
1. Provide examples which illustrate the complexity and diversity of
the tasks which are assigned to the position.
Ability to organize and control groups of students e.g. 25
students per class. Must have extensive knowledge of
legal system and court procedures and be able to organize
visits in keeping with course objectives. Must be able to
make and sustain community contacts with security
agencies.
2. Provide examples of typical problems solved by the incumbent.
Resolve problems which arise because of unsatisfactory
behaviour or performance of students in the community.
Ability to refer problems to faculty when related to
academic objectives.
D. GUIDANCE RECEIVED ...
1. What kind of instructions are required at the beginning of a
typical work assignment?
14
Instructions from program co-ordinator re types and
locations of field placements. Congruity of field
placements with program philosophy and curriculum
guidelines.
2. Describe the documented procedures that are available to serve
as guidelines for typical work assignments and indicate how often
they are referred to.
Course curriculum and general College policy.
3. HOW REGULARLY is the position's work checked? (e.g. several
times daily, in process, weekly or on completion of the project,
monthly). Describe HOW the work is reviewed (e.g. detailed review,
by exception, by report, by discussion).
In process checking. Reviewed by discussion.
4. What typical problems are normally referred to the position's
Supervisor for solution?
Student absences and delinquent assignments. Student
discipline problems in community environment. Resolving
expectations of placement agencies and College procedures.
E. COMMUNICATIONS ...
1. Internal Contacts Reason for Contact Freq
Students Fieldwork supervision D
Program Co-ordinator Student progress W
Faculty member(s) Student progress W
Divisional Chair Student progress M
2. External Contacts Reason for Contact Freq
Local Police Forces Fieldwork placement and W
monitoring of students
Court 0fficials Court visits by students M
Local businesses Fieldwork placement and W
monitoring of students
F. TRAINING/EXPERIENCE/SKILL
1. Indicate the minimum amount of practical work experience
required to perform this job.
More than 8 years security experience.
2. Indicate the minimum level of academic or formalized training
required to undertake the duties of this position.
Police Officer or similar training.
15
3. Specify the particular skills and abilities required to perform
the duties and responsibilities of the position.
Organizing ability and ability to deal with a large group
of students. Ability to explain Court and agency
procedures. Drivers license.
G. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA ...
This is a part-time position (15 hours per week) for 30
weeks per year.
We were told that there are a number of courses in the College calendar
similar to the Laws course with which we are concerned. One is BSCI108 Field
Experience which is part of the Behavioural Science course given in the Human
Services Division (see Ex. 17). The relevant parts of the course information
sheet for BSCI108 (Ex. 18) is reproduced below:
Duration: 6.0 hours per week 15 weeks
90.0 hours in total
Prerequisites: None
Co-Requisites: None
Course Description
As a volunteer worker in an organization compatible with individual
interests, the student gains an understanding of the nature and
demands of "helping". The student will be able to demonstrate
her/his ability to effectively relate to people in basic helping
situations, allowing self-evaluation in the role, and further career
considerations to be confirmed or changed.
Course Objectives
Upon successful completion of this course the student will be able
to:
1. Have experienced being a volunteer worker in helping
organizations compatible with individual interests.
2. Understand the roles and responsibilities of volunteer
workers in human service roles.
3. Understand the value and importance of voluntarism in
16
these settings.
4. Have demonstrated his/her ability to effectively relate to
people in basic helping situations in a positive and
supportive way.
5. Understand the nature and demands of being a human service
worker, with particular reference to the specialized roles
involved.
6. Identify desirable and undesirable qualities in a helping
professional (i.e. with reference to oneself and fellow
workers).
7. Understand the needs of special populations and particular
handicaps or conditions.
8. Confirm (or not) his/her compatibility with and desire for
a career as a "helper" through self-evaluation and
consideration of one's field experience.
9. Proceed more specifically in the clarification and
confirmation of a particular helping, people-oriented or
other occupational role best suited to her/him as an
individual.
10. Begin to critically evaluate human service organizations,
recognizing the scope and limitations of their jurisdic-
tions.
Teaching/Learning Methodology
The major learning is intended to occur during your field work
experiences. In addition, student/instructor dialogue and regular
weekly completion of field logs will enhance learning.
Field work experience - 90%
Weekly classroom seminars - 5%
Weekly review of field logs - 5%
Required Student Resources
All forms and log sheets contained in The Field Experience Manual
(and Supplement if necessary) to be purchased from the Fanshawe
College Bookstore.
Responsibility, enthusiasm and good communication.
College Supplied Resources
Approved field placements.
Individual consultation with instructors.
Method of Evaluation
Because of the interdependence of each of the following criteria the
17
final grade will be based on a minimum of 80% completion of all of
the following:
(a) attendance and co-operation at all class meetings;
(b) after initial direction from the instructor, within 2
weeks arranging and commencing field experience;
(c) regular completion of weekly logs as instructed;
(d) prompt and accurate completion of all forms as instructed;
(e) satisfactory behavioural performance in field;
(f) w~itten papers satisfactorily completed;
behavioural performance in accordance with program
behavioural expectations.
The College also referred us to a position description (Ex. 20) for an
Early Childhood Education Worker B - Child Care Centre, a support staff
position which covers work which the College relied on as being similar to
Mr. Pommer's. The relevant portions are set out below:
Position Title and Department:
Early Childhood Education Worker B - Child Care Centre
Reports to (Title and Department):
Manager, Child Care Centre through the Assistant Manager
A. POSITION SUMMARY ...
Under general supervision, plans and implements an
educational program for pre-school children in the Child
Care Centre/Pre-School Lab (ECE Program). Provides
direction and instruction to ECE students on placement in
the Pre-School Lab and also to new staff and part-time
staff on an ongoing basis.
B. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ....
1. Provides direction and instruction to full-time and part-
time post secondary ECE students in a practicum arrange-
ment in the Pre-School lab. Plans and implements
practical learning experiences for students and provides
oral and written assessments of each student.
2. Provides orientation and on-job training to new staff
both full-time, part-time and casual relief as a result of
sickness, vacation, maternity leave, ongoing development
and expansion of Child Care Centre and staff turnover.
3. Designs, implements and monitors the educational program
18
for children in the Child Care Centre.
4. Designs, implements and monitors learning experiences in
creative arts, language arts, natural sciences, social and
physical skills and mathematics skills for children in
various locations, e.g. the Centre, in the College and
off-campus, as appropriate.
5. Promotes the physical, social, emotional and intellectual
development of children in the Pre-School Lab and
maintains ongoing communication with parents/guardians
regarding the child's development.
6. Designs, implements and monitors a program of indoor and
outdoor activities to promote physical health and
development.
7. Supervises children in nourishment routines and promotes
social skills at mealtimes.
8. Supervises children in rest periods.
9. Reports unusual situations such as allergies or be-
havioural irregularities to the Assistant Manager and
takes necessary action.
10. Provides First Aid in case of emergency.
11. Carries out kitchen assignments including preparing snacks
and lunch and clean-up.
12. Completes work orders for necessary repairs to toys and
equipment.
13. Places appropriate documents in each child's file.
C. JOB DIFFICULTY ...
1. prOvide examples which illustrate the complexity and diversity of
the tasks which are assigned to the position.
Interacts with students, parents/guardians and children:
1. Children - promotes intellectual, emotional, physical and
social development of young children.
2. Students - designs practical learning experiences,
monitors and evaluates student learning and development.
3. Parents/Guardians - communicates with parents/guardians on
all aspects of child's behaviour and development and other
relevant matters.
19
2. Provide examples of typical problems solved by the incumbent.
1. Helps ECE students carry through with the philosophy of
the College Child Care Centre with which they may/may not
(dis}agree.
2. Provides constructive criticism to ECE students regarding
sensitive, personal performance on placement in the
Centre.
3. Offers suggestions/feedback to parents/guardians re
child's behaviour and development.
4. Deals with child's fear of being dirty or wet because of
repercussions at home.
D. GUIDANCE RECEIVED ...
1. What kind of instructions are required at the beginning of a
typical work assignment?
Past practices and documented procedures and policies are normally
followed. Oral and occasional written instructions from the
Assistant Manager are given for new or unusual situations.
2. Describe the documented procedures that are available to serve as
guidelines for typical work assignments and indicate how often they
are referred to.
Day Nursery Act (Provincial Statute) regularly. Posted procedures
in Day Care Centre, e.g. fire, sanitation, behaviour management-
referred to regularly. College Policies and Procedures regarding
Child Care services and placement of ECE students.
3. HOW REGULARLY is the position's work checked? (e.9. several times
daily, in process, weekly or on completion of the project, monthly).
Describe HOW the work is reviewed (e.g. detailed review, by
exception, by report, by discussion).
Since a high degree of independent planning and judgement is
followed by staff in normal circumstances, work is infrequently
checked by Assistant Manager unless there are new and unusual
situations occurring.
4. What typical problems are normally referred to the position's
Supervisor for solution?
1. Student complaint re the evaluation given by staff
regarding field placement performance.
2. Parents/guardians dissatisfied with information provided
by staff.
3. Hard to resolve, complex behavioural problems with
children.
4. Students not accepting the authority of staff when
enforcing the policies of the Centre.
20
E. COMMUNICATIONS
1. Internal Contacts Reason for Contact Freq
ECE students Placement instruction and D
evaluation and operation of
Day Care Centre.
Co-workers Policies/Procedures/Planning/ D
0rientation/Training
Assistant Manager Consultation re all aspects D
of Child Care Programming and
field placement supervision
Co-ordinator/Faculty Students' field placements, W
ECE Program Co-ordination of practical
with theoretical aspect of
ECE Program
Physical Resources Health and safety concerns,
work orders
Safety & Security Health and safety concerns I
Manager Evaluations, periodic M
meetings, personal matters.
2. External Contacts Reason for Contact Freq
Parents/Guardians Sick children, progress and D
development, program infor-
mation
Outside agencies Field trips for children and M
resource speakers
Observers Child program observation W
F. TRAINING/EX]?ERIENCE/SKILL
1. Indicate the minimum amount of practical work experience required
to perform this job.
Two years experience in a licensed nursery school/day care centre.
2. Indicate the minimum level of academic or formalized training
required to undertake the duties of this position.
Two years ECE diploma (CAAT Program} or equivalent followed by
certification by Association for Early Childhood Education, Ontario.
In the case of Infant/Toddler, required minimum of post-diploma
Infant/toddler or equivalent.
3. Specify the particular skills and abilities required to perform
the duties and responsibilities of the position.
Flexibility, dependability, ability to communicate feelings openly.
Patience and understanding in dealing with children. Sense of
humour. Verbal and written communication skills. Ability to plan
and implement an educational program, supervise children, instruct
and evaluate ECE students on field placement, and ability to guide
children's behaviour.
G. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA ...
The essential element of this position is that the incumbent is an
educator of pre-schoole~s who enhances and promotes the social,
physical, intellectual, creative and emotional development of young
children and at the same time designs, monitors and evaluates
practical learning experiences for ECE students on placement in the
Pre-School Lab.
In early 1989 the College's budget situation led the Chair of the
Division, Ms. Lancaster, to convene a meeting of all six program co-ordinators
in her Division. M~. Pierce was one of them. The discussions at the meeting
centred around improving the programs and increasing efficiency. Upon an
analysis of the Law and Security Administration program it was brought to the
attention of the Chair by the meeting that it would be more efficient to use
non-teaching personnel for field observation and field placement. The
initial suggestion was for Laws 105, and M~. Pierce agreed that it would be
efficient. The Chair then discussed the matter with the Dean, who suggested
that Laws 305 and 316 might be included as well. The Chair then did an
analysis of the courses, and for the first time scrutinized what duties and
responsibilities were entailed in all three courses. M~. Coon was also
interviewed, and he agreed that it was efficient to use non-teaching staff to
perform the functions already outlined. In the course of doing the analysis
the Chair talked to the outside agencies and contacts. She also discussed
with Mr. Coon what occurred at the courthouse and the duties performed there.
She then determined that certain aspects of the work done by the teachers were
non-teaching in nature, and so made the changes which gave rise to this
grievance. The position description [Ex. 22) was then developed, the job was
rated, and Mr. Pommer was hired.
22
As already noted, the SWF's for Messrs Pierce and Coon (Exs. 13 & 14)
after the grieved change reflect that they were assigned no contact hours for
the three courses in question. They are assigned complementary hours in
connection with those courses. The College considers that they are the
"instructors of record" for the courses because they are responsible for
assigning grades for them. The Union does not disagree that an "instructor of
record" can be someone to whom complementary hours are assigned in connection
with a course.
Concerning the position description for the Early Childhood Education
Worker B (Ex. 20), we were informed that each course in the program concerned
has a teacher teaching it. There is no teacher present in the Centre/Lab
when the students are there as part of their program.
The parties also referred us to the Class Definition for Teaching Master
in the current collective agreement (Ex. 2):
Under the direction of the senior academic officer of the
College or designate a Teaching Master is responsible for providing
academic leadership and for developing an effective learning
environment for students. This includes:
a) The design/revision/updating of courses, including:
- consulting with program and course directors and other
faculty members, advisory committees, accrediting
agencies, potential employers and students;
- defining course objectives and evaluating and validating
these objectives;
- specifying or approving learning approaches, necessary
resources, etc.;
- developing individualized instruction and multi-media
presentations where applicable;
- selecting or approving textbooks and learning materials.
b) The teaching of assigned courses, including:
- ensuring student awareness of course objectives, approach
and evaluation techniques;
- carrying out regularly scheduled instruction;
- tutoring and academic counselling of students;
- providing a learning environment which makes effective use
of available resources, work experience and field trips;
- evaluating student progress/achievement and assuming
responsibility for the overall assessment of the student's
work within assigned courses.
c) The provision of academic leadership, including:
- providing guidance to Instructors relative to the
Instructor's teaching assignments;
- participating in the work of curriculum and other
consultative committees as requested.
In addition, the Teaching Master may, from time to time, be
called upon to contribute to other areas ancillary to the role of
Teaching Master, such as student recruitment and selection, time-
tabling, facility design, professional development, student
employment, and control of supplies and equipment.
ARGUMENT
In summary, the Union pointed out that there has been no change in the
content of the courses in question. It asserted that in Laws 105 instruction
was given by observing the judicial system at work and by listening to
lectures given by police officers; and that both are "learning environments"
in which the "available resources" were being used to impart knowledge to
students. It compared the court observations to field trips and the police
lectures to having guest lecturers come to the College. The Union pointed out
that before the reorganization a teacher was at all Laws 105 venues to do what
is typically done by a teacher {to take attendance, to organize the setting,
to control the learning environment in a disciplinary sense, to respond to
questions, to assist in the learning process, to introduce and thank lec-
turers, and to stimulate discussion as necessary). It argued that the whole
focus of the roles of both Mr. Coon and Mr. Pommer was the same in that they
were both concerned with providing the learning environment and assisting the
students in that environment, as well as being present with the students
throughout the learning experience. The Union described that as typical
teacher work. It also argued that although Mr. Pommer was informed of his
24
role and acknowledged that he knew that he was not to be instructing students,
there was really very little difference between what Mr. Coon and Mr. Pommer
did in relation to Laws 105.
The Union argued that the cases dealing with status have focused on "core
responsibility". It said that in each case between these parties where
support staff were found not to be performing work of the academic bargaining
unit the core responsibility was one that traditionally was that of support
staff personnel. It also asserted that in each of those cases there was a
teacher who was responsible for the learning environment who had contact
hours assigned in relation to that course, and the support staff person was
there to assist the teacher by performing an appropriate support staff
function. The Union argued that this case is different because there is no
teacher "providing a learning environment which makes effective use of
available resources, work experience and field trips". It described the
College's actions as an attempt to divide the teaching function into two
components, giving one to a non-teacher who sets up the learning environment
and the other to the teacher who evaluates the students. The Union asserted
that when the SWF for Mr. Coon and the entire situation is examined there is
no teacher performing the major portion of the function of the job class
described in the class definition as "providing a learning environment which
makes effective use of available resources, work experience and field trips".
It argued that all there was was a teacher teaching other courses who was
given two hours of complementary time to evaluate students.
The Union also argued that the College's justification was to save money,
but in doing so it had removed a teacher from the core of Laws 105. It
asserted that the function of "providing a learning environment which makes
25
effective use of available resources, work experience and field trips" had
been totally removed from the teacher.. The Union expressed a concern that in
a course where all or most of the learning environment was provided by
persons who were not employed by the College, for example where all lectures
were given by guests, the College could have a support staff person arrange
for the guests, control the students, introduce the lecturer, stimulate
discussion and thank the guest, thereby relegating the t'eacher to simply being
responsible for grading.
Regarding Laws 305 and 316, the Union said that the learning environment
was one that used resources which had aspects of both work experience and
field trips. The Union pointed out that in both courses there is no classroom
instruction, and the imparting of information is done by someone other than a
College employee. With reference to Article 4.01(4)(c)(viii) it argued that
it was clearly part of the work of the academic bargaining unit to prepare
those parts of a course where the students apply knowledge in an actual work
setting. The Union also argued that that provision contemplated that there
would be learning environments where a teacher has the responsibility to
provide the environment but where others will actually impart instruction as
an "available resource". It pointed out that for years the College recognized
the work in question as academic bargaining unit work, but now has removed the
teacher from having any responsibility for the course or for providing the
learning environment, and has replaced the teacher with a support staff
person. The Union said that the College has again segregated the two aspects
of the teacher's work and has left the teacher with responsibility only for
grading. IS pointed out that there is no SWF which shows that any of the
three courses in question are being taught by a member of the academic
26
bargaining unit.
The Union argued that if the grievance was not allowed then the result
would be the substantial narrowing of the class definition of Teaching Master.
It agreed that the actual imparting of knowledge may be done by someone other
than the teacher, but argued that providing the learning environment which
makes efficient use of the resources which impart knowledge is academic work.
The Union also took the position that while it might be useful to know
what other support staff people do, the real question was whether the College
had breached Article 1 of the academic bargaining unit agreement, and the
College would nevertheless have breached that article if it had agreed with
the support staff Union that teaching and instruction were part of the work of
the support staff. Regarding the Early Childhood Education Worker B (Ex. 20),
the Union pointed out that there was no evidence about the relationship of the
job functions to a particular course, or of the role played by the academic
bargaining unit person assigned to that course. The Union also asserted that
the description disclosed a host of functions that were directly involved with
the supervision of children rather than to the teaching of students; it asked
us to conclude that the core of that job was running the day care centre with
some responsibility for the instruction of College students.
By agreement the College's argument and the Union's reply were both
submitted in writing. In order to give a complete outline of the arguments
made to us by the parties those submissions will be summarized.
The College's primary position is that it has not violated the collec-
tive agreement because the required duties of the Fieldwork Liaison Officer
are not those which would bring him within the academic bargaining unit.
Referring to Article 1.01 of the agreement, the College stated the issue as
being whether or not the position in question was that of a teacher within the
meaning of the article.
The College submitted that it has the right to reorganize and to assign
duties to those in various positions and classifications provided that it does
so for legitimate business reasons without violating the collective agreement.
It asserted that to determine whether or not a position was a teaching
position one had to determine whether the core or prime function was to act as
"the human instrument of instruction relating to the course curriculum". The
College then submitted that an analysis of the job functions of the position
show that the job can be categorized as having at its core "the organization
and scheduling of field visits and placements within established parameters
and the monitoring of such visits and placements." The College also submitted
that when determining whether the core function of a job is teaching, arbi-
trators have in the past established and applied these principles: 1. There
is a substantial area of overlap between the ancillary duties of a teacher and
the duties of support staff; 2. Handing out of assignments, taking atten-
dance, collecting assignments, and directing inquiries do not amount to
teaching functions; 3. Monitoring and supervising students while they are
being trained or instructed by others does not constitute teaching;
4. Organizing and scheduling placements, together with the monitoring and
supervision of placements after the student has been placed, is not teaching;
5. The fact that duties were once performed by teachers and subsequently
assigned to support staf£ does not operate to preclude those duties from being
characterized as being non-teaching in nature.
It was the College's position that the position's prime function was not
involved in instruction, evaluation or the preparation of course curriculum.
28
It also submitted that all instruction, problem solving, guidance relating to
academic objectives, and evaluation were being performed by teachers.
Regarding the Union's focus on the portion of the Teaching Master class
definition which deals with "providing a learning environment which makes
effective use of available resources, work experience and field trips", the
College's position was that it was not the support staff person who provides
the learning environment but that it was the police, the courts and the
various agencies. It argued that the support staff position has no control
over what transpires in any of those environments, that the initial design
and development of the courses were done by someone other than the support
staff person, and that it was in the initial development of the courses that
the decisions were made regarding how the courses would be structured to make
effective use of field trips and work assignments.
The College also argued that the particulars of the Teaching Master class
definition must be read in the context of and in a manner which is consistent
with the statement found in the preamble that says, "a Teaching Master is
responsible for providing academic leadership and for developing an effective
learning environment for students". The College submitted that the Fieldwork
Liaison Officer is responsible only for monitoring and supervising the learn-
ing environment which was developed by an academic bargaining unit member. It
argued that to accept the Union's argument would be to expand the class
definition of Teaching Master in a way that was inconsistent with the class
definition and the previous cases between the parties. The College also
argued that it was wrong to isolate one part of the class definition while
ignoring the class definition as a whole. It asserted that if the whole class
definition were used then the duties performed by the Field Liaison Officer
29
would be clearly shown to be non-teaching.
The College disputed the Union's assertion that the course existed
without a teacher and that that was inappropriate. It asserted that it was
incorrect to say that there was no teacher because a teacher performs
evaluations, outlines course objectives, deals with academic problems, and
instructs regarding report writing. It also argued that the collective
agreement does not require a particular amount of time in a course to be
allocated to a teacher, but rather that teachers be covered by the academic
bargaining unit collective agreement, and it compared the situation before us
to a correspondence course.
The College also argued that Article 4.01(4)(c)(viii) does not mean that
the performance of those duties characterizes the position as teaching. It
pointed to the ancillary duties specified in the class definition of Teaching
Master and argued that Article 4.01(4){c)(viii) simply provided a mechanism
for accounting for such ancillary duties while pointing out that an overlap in
duties does not mean that there has been an improper classification or work
assignment.
In reply the Union argued that in answering whether the duties and
responsibilities of the position were those of a Teaching Master or of a
support staff person one should keep in mind: (1) that the activities are
confined to three specific courses of instruction; and (2) that the College
has not assigned a teacher to teach any of the three courses but has made the
support staff person principally responsible for the delivery of instruction.
It distinguished the cases referred to by the College by saying that they were
situations where the support staff person's duties were at their core typical
non-teaching duties. The Union asserted that this was a case where the core
30
and all of the duties of the position were typically associated with teaching
and where all of the duties were found in the class definition of Teaching
Master. It also submitted that the core duties of this position were not
typically support staff duties and must be considered to be teaching because
all or almost all of the duties are associated with teaching rather than
support staff functions. The Union also argued that any employee whose core
duties were one or more of the five items set out under "teaching of assigned
courses" in the class definition must be found to be teaching or else the
College could simply assign those items, apart from actual instruction, to a
non-academic employee.
The parties referred us to the following cases: Fanshawe College and
Ontario Public Service Employees' Union, (1987) unreported (Kates); Fanshawe
College and Ontario Public Service Employees' Union, (1987) unreported
(Brent); Fanshawe Colleqe and Ontario Public Service Employees' Union, (1990)
unreported (Brent); and Ontario Public Service Employees' Union and Fanshawe
College, [1984] OLRB (Board File 1668-83-M).
In addition they referred us to the following provisions in the collec-
tive agreement:
1.01 The Union is recognized as the exclusive collective bargaining
agency for all academic employees of the College engaged as
teachers, counsellors and librarians, all as more particularly set
out in Appendix I hereto save and except Chairs, Department Heads
and Directors, persons above the rank of Chair, Department Head or
Director, persons covered by the Memorandum of Agreement with the
Ontario Public Service Employees Union in the support staff
bargaining unit, and other persons excluded by the legislation and
teachers, counsellors and librarians employed on a part-time or
sessional basis.
4.01 (4)(c) For the purposes of the formula:
(viii) "Special B" refers to preparation for sections of a
course in which the objectives describe the students' application of
knowledge in actual work settings.
Additional time necessary to arrange and prepare for student
placement in such learning situations shall be. attributed on an hour
for hour basis and recorded on the Standard Workload Form (SWF), as
referred to in Article 4.02 below.
DECISION
In reaching our decision we have considered only the facts and documents
given to us by the parties, the submissions,, the authorities cited and the
collective agreement. This case is rather unusual because the very functions
formerly performed by members of the academic bargaining unit have been
removed from the jobs of two Teaching Masters and given to a member of the
support staff union who performs only those duties as his job. The situation
is complex because there is and has always been a significant amount of inter-
bargaining unit overlap between the work performed by people who are properly
classified in one unit or the other. The cases cited to us reflect that
reality. Moreover, in the particular job performed by any Teaching Master one
could probably find elements that could properly be separated from his/her
duties and assigned to a member of the support staff. For example, if one
Teaching Master traditionally gave out course assignments by typing and
posting them and another Teaching Master traditionally gave out course
assignments by having a support staff employee type and post them, would the
actions of either one cause the College to be in breach of either collective
agreement? Because a legitimate function of support staff is to support the
work of academics, it is inevitable that at times members of both groups may
quite properly be doing exactly the same thing without in any way performing
the core function of each other's job.
We agree with the Union that the question before us is not whether the
32
job has been properly classified using the criteria appropriate for the
support staff unit, but whether or not the core function of the job is
teaching. For our purposes, we will make no assumption about the job's
classification, but will examine it to determine if it is in substance a
teaching job.
In 1984 the Ontario Labour Relations Board considered the position of Co-
op Liaison Officer at the College (see case cited supra). The Union's
position then was that the job belonged to either the academic or the support
staff bargaining unit, and the College's was that it should be excluded from
both bargaining units. The OLRB found that the job was properly in the
support staff bargaining unit and that its thrust was marketing the program to
employers and students as well as supervising and monitoring student place-
ments. The Co-op Liaison Officer job was again examined in the 1987 Kates
decision between the parties (supra) after some duties previously performed by
a Teaching Master were transferred to that position. The duties in question
involved monitoring and supervising student placements in the Stationary
Engineer Program. It would appear from the case that the re-organization
resulted in no Teaching Master being assigned to the course, with the evalua-
tion of students being done solely by the Chief Engineer at the placement
site. The Kates board found, at page 7, that the only "teaching" function
that had been performed by the Teaching Master was the evaluation of students,
and that that responsibility had not been transferred to the Co-op Liaison
Officer. It also found, at page 9, that the fact that the on-the-job
placement appeared in the calendar as a course was irrelevant to the status of
the 0fficer. The result was a finding that while monitoring and supervising
students the Co-op Liaison Officer was not engaged in teaching (at page 9).
33
The other two cases cited to us involving the parties both deal with the
status of those whose jobs had a necessary aspect of student contact arising
out of their responsibility for certain assets owned by the College. If one
were to accept literally the Union's emphasis on the provision of a learning
environment as being determinative of status, then would it not be possible to
argue that any employee who was concerned with maintaining the equipment on
which students learn is involved in providing such an environment?
We agree with the College that when determining whether or not a position
falls within the class definition of Teaching Master it is necessary to
examine the entire job in the context of the entire class definition. To
isolate one aspect in an environment where there is recognized to be overlap
in duties is to distort the classifications. There is nothing under sections
(a) or (c) of the Teaching Master class definition which can be said to be
done by Mr. Pommer in the course of his job. The only indication that he
might arguably be "teaching assigned courses" related to the question of
whether he was engaged in "providing a learning environment which makes
effective use of available resources, work experience and field trips".
However, in trying to interpret what it means to provide a learning environ-
ment surely one must look at the entire class definition. Hence, it would
seem that what is intended there is something more than merely ensuring that
the "available resources, work experience and field trips" are there and
running properly. What is probably intended is some active intervention to
ensure that the provided learning environment is serving a teaching end.
In relation to the activities involved with Laws 305 and 316, we believe
that the duties performed by Mr. Pommer relate solely to the monitoring of
student placements. There is no evidence that Mr. Pommer designed the course,
34
chose the placements, set out the academic objectives to be attained in the
course, or did any work in connection with the two courses that could be
characterized as teaching within the class definition. His monitoring duties
in connection with those two courses appear to be analogous to the duties
performed by the Co-op Liaison Officer in connection with the Stationary
Engineer Program which was considered by the Kates board and found to be non-
teaching in nature. The work appears simply to be the administration of
student placement and not teaching.
The work in Laws 105 is somewhat different from that done in connection
with the other two courses. In that course Mr. Pommer is required to assess
the daily activities taking place in the courts and to determine which are
most appropriate to fulfilling the academic objectives of the course, and to
ensure that the question period at the police station gets off the ground by
asking questions himself if necessary, thereby advancing the course objectives
or ensuring that they can be met. Those two particular activities strike us
as being more teaching than support in nature, in that they do involve a
knowledge of course objectives and an assessment of how the learning environ-
ment can be manipulated to ensure that they are met. Simply being present at
the venues in order to ensure that the students behave appropriately and know
where to go is not, in our view, something which can be called "providing a
learning environment which makes effective use of available resources, work
experience and field trips" within the context.of the class definition of
Teaching Master.
The fact that no. instructor is assigned to the course in the sense of
being assigned contact hours is not determinative of anything. The College
analoFy to correspondence courses is a good one; there is nothing in the
35
collective agreement to which we were referred which would require that all of
the working hours of each Teaching Master be assigned to a particular course.
Also, in the decision between the parties made by the Kates board (supra), the
fact that there was no Teaching Master assigned to the course was not given
weight. Further we do not consider that Article 4.01(4)(c)(viii) is deter-
minative of the issue. We agree that it simply provides a workload formula
for accounting for certain types of duties when they are performed. In view
of the earlier decision between the parties it cannot suggest that all of that
work is work which is properly considered to be teaching in nature.
For all of the reasons set out above, we find that the only "teaching"
which Mr. Pommer performs is in Laws 105, and more particularly relates to
determining which court activities will be best for the students to observe,
and to getting the question period going on the right track at the police
station. Those are duties which fall beyond the administration of student
placement and the monitoring of field trip behaviour, which we consider to be
non-teaching in nature. Given the way in which the job is structured and the
evidence we had, it is difficult for us to determine exactly how much of the
job is involved with "teaching". Accordingly, we consider that if the job
description or the instructions to Mr. Pommer regarding Laws 105 were altered
to ensure that he is not involved in exercising any judgement to ensure that
course objectives are met through his active manipulation of the field trip
experience then the job would be clearly and completely one of supervising and
monitoring student placement/field trip experience, and hence unquestionably
properly in the support staff bargaining unit. Another alternative would, of
course, be to remove those responsibilities relating to Laws 105 from
Mr. Pommer.
DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS ~ AY 0F ~ , 1991.
Gail Brent
Rene St. Onge, Nominee
dissent J~e Grimwood, ~ · ~-~"~"~' -
Union Nominee
IN T~E MATTER O? AN ARBITRATION
AND IN T~E MATTER OF UNION GRIEVANCE
(OPSEU File No: 89D310)
BETWEEN~
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
-and-
FANSHAW~ COLLEGE
DISSENT FROM TH~ MAJORI~ AWARD
BOARD OF ARBITRATION: GaiI Brent - ChaArperson
Jane Grimwood - Union Nominee
Rene $~. Onge - College Nominee
DISSENT
I have rea~ the award of the Majority, and must respectfully disagree
with both the analysis, and the result.
The tortuous route by which the Majority decides that the grievance is
unfounded makes a mockery of what college life is all about. It seems ~hat
the Majority has totally lost sight of what teaching really is, Socrates
would be support staff under the Majority's helpful guidelines.
If the individual involved, is mot "providing a learning environment
which makes effective use of available resources, work experience, and
field trips," then Fanshawe College should get into another business.
This case is a perfect example of why normal men and women have come
to distrust the semantic shenanigans that "professionals", with their
"expertise", employ to achieve results that lack common sense. And I
cannot emphasize that enough, Try and explain what Ken Pommer does to
students, parents, and the ordinary Canadian, and see whether he's called a
teacher or not. A rose by any other name is still a ro~e.
The ironic aspect of the case, is that nmbody is really disputing why
the College is doing what it is doing. The motive is obvious. They have
simply worked backwards from their desired result, and the Majority is
condoning this decision.
A clearer example of a nonsensical approach to Labour Relations would
be hard to find. The academic bargaining unit is weakened, the students in
the course now have no teacher, and the logic employed by the Majority is
no logic at all.
For the Majority to state, that the implications of the Union's
position i$ that
"...would it not be possible to argue that any employee
who was concerned with maintaining the equipment on
which students learn is involved in providing such an
environment? (p. 33)",
is absurd. The Union has said no such thing. In fact, the Union
distinguished %his case from those cases in which the duties of the
support staff position are, at their core, typical non-teaching duties such
as the maintenance of machinery and equipment.
In this case, we have a position in which not only the core but all of
the duties of thc position are found within the cla$$ definition of
Teaching Master.
The Majority should not allow the College to undermine the academic
bargaining unit in this fashion.
The grievance should be allowed.
Dated in Toronto
this 17th day of June, 1991
Jane Grimwood
Union Nominee