HomeMy WebLinkAboutPanko 98-09-23IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION
(hereinafter referred to as "the Union")
- and -
GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE
(hereinafter referred to as "the College")
Grievance of Eugene Panko
Before: M. G. Mitchnick- Chairman
S. Nicholson- Union Nominee
R. Gallivan- Employer Nominee
Appearances:
For the Union:
G. Richards- Senior Grievance Officer
E. Panko- Grievor
For the College:
S. Raymond- Counsel
S. Roy- Vice-President, Human Resources
H. Zimmer- Chairperson, Faculty of
Technology
Z. Ulla- Manager, Labour Relations
Hearings held in Toronto on January 22nd and May 26th, 1997 and
March 2nd and 4th and June 12th, 1998
A W A R D
The grievor, Eugene Panko, grieves his lay-off from the
College, and in particular the refusal of the College to allow
him to bump the more junior member of the faculty, Robert Young.
In that regard Article 27.06(a) of the collective agreement
provides:
When the College decides to lay off or to
27.06
reduce the number of full-time employees who have
completed the probationary period or transfer
involuntarily full-time employees who have completed
the probationary period to another position from that
previously held as a result of such lay-off or
reduction of employees, the following placement and
displacement provisions shall apply to full-time
employees so affected. Where an employee has the
competence, skill and experience to fulfil the
requirements of the full-time position concerned,
seniority shall apply consistent with the following:
(i) An employee will be reassigned within the College
to a vacant full-time position in lieu of being
laid off if the employee has the competence, skill
and experience to perform the requirements of a
vacant position.
(ii) Failing placement under 27.06(i) such employees
shall be reassigned to displace another full-time
employee in the same classification provided that:
(a) the displacing employee has the competence,
skill and experience to fulfil the
requirements of the position concerned.
(b) the employee being displaced has lesser
seniority with the College.
. . .
The grievor has been teaching Machine Shop courses for the
College since 1979. Prior to that he had substantial Tool-&-Die-
making experience in private industry. He did his apprenticeship
at Delhi Die and Manufacturing, a job shop serving local
2
industry. His duties there were to manufacture special tools,
gauges, jigs, fixtures, dies and injection moulds as well as the
manufacture and repair of the injection moulds. He also had to
do his own welding, tool and cutter grinding, make his own
carbide lathe cutting tools, heat-treating and machine repair and
maintenance. Subsequently he was at both DeHavilland Aircraft
and Westinghouse in a similar capacity, and finally from 1975 to
1979 did tool and die manufacture and repair at Associated Tool
and Engineering in Hamilton. At George Brown the bulk of the
grievor's time has been spent teaching the Apprenticeship courses
(all three levels) for either the Tool & Die or Machinist
qualification. His teaching in the post-secondary diploma
courses, conversely, has been limited, teaching in the actual
Technician course only in 1984, as well as teaching two intake
courses to technician students in the spring of 1983.
There is absolutely no dispute but that the grievor is a
competent teacher, and a highly-qualified Tool & Die Maker. At
the same time, however, the grievor himself acknowledges the
dramatic changes that computerization has brought to both design
and manufacturing in industry. The grievor also acknowledges the
importance of a teacher moving with the times, so as to stay
"current". Mr. Young, the focus of this displacement
application, teaches an assortment of courses in the post-
secondary Technician program. Those courses, as one would
expect, place a heavy emphasis on drafting and design. Given the
grievor's background and experience, there is little doubt of the
3
grievor's ability to step in and teach the fundamentals of those
drafting areas in terms of the basic theory involved. The
problem is that the actual methodology for the application of
those basic theories has changed dramatically, with the advent of
Computer-Assisted Design. That certainly is true, as the grievor
acknowledges, in the larger companies in industry, and those
would be a primary focus for jobs upon graduation for these post-
secondary diploma Technicians. Even the design functions of the
first semester course MENG 2004 is taught in today's marketplace
with an emphasis on computers and the applicable software. The
same is true in the second semester course, in terms of
Computerized Numerical Control (CNC), Programmed Logic Control
(PLC) and Mechatronics. As well, the Quality Assistance courses
are all founded now in Statistics, and the grievor demonstrated
and admitted to lack of familiarity with even some of the most
basic concepts in his evidence (for example, "mean", versus
"median"). But the most direct problem for the grievor is with
the two Computer-Aided Drafting and Design courses themselves,
which are taught wholly in the computer lab. The Course Outlines
for these latter provide:
COURSE NAME: Computer Aided Drafting I
COURSE CODE: CADE1006
PREREQUISITE: Self-directed introduction to
Computers
(or equivalent)
The purpose of this course is to provide students with
a basic understanding of the features, limitations and
considerations associated with the operation of a
computer-aided drafting (CAD) system. Students will
4
gain hands-on experience using a current release of
AutoCAD for the Windows 95 platform, using 2-
dimensional construction commands. In addition
students will reinforce their experience with available
peripherals.
. . .
Upon completion of the course, the student will have
demonstrated the ability to:
1.- identify CAD hardware components and system
configurations,
2.- copy drawing files to and from a personal
computer,
3.- operate typical CAD workstation components,
4.- use a systematic approach to create drawings
(specific to the students' discipline) using
AutoCAD release 13 for Windows 95,
5.- construct drawings with the necessary
dimensions that will communicate to the end
user the correct sizes and specifications,
6.- produce accurate drawings using available
printing devices, and
7.- identify the features, limitations and
considerations associated with the basic
commands and characteristics of AutoCAD.
And then:
COURSE NAME: Computer Aided Design I
COURSE CODE: CADE2003
PREREQUISITES: Computers in Engineering Applications II -
CADE1004
This course is designed to develop and apply the
principles of Computer Aided Design Drafting. The
student will develop and expand the use of programming
tools and aids to increase drafting efficiency in the
completion of complex design and detail drawings.
At the end of the course, the learner will be able to:
1. Copy, organize and create files on a stand alone
personal computer.
5
2. Construct two dimensional drawings with the
necessary dimensions, that will communicate to the
end user the correct sizes and specifications.
3. Produce professional looking drawings that realize
productivity gains over conventionally created
hand drawings using advanced CADD construction and
editing techniques.
4. Plot out computer generated drawings using the
relevant features of the design drafting package.
5. Employ self-directed strategies to learn new
features of software packages and other technology
independently by applying or transferring
previously acquired knowledge.
From the College's perspective, some degree of comfort and
familiarity with computers, just to be able to "trouble-shoot"
effectively for the students in the lab, is absolutely essential
in the teacher. And beyond that, of course, is a question of the
teacher's facility with the actual Computer-Aided method of
drafting, and those specific software programs. As Ms. Zimmer,
the chair of the Technology Department testified, that computer
requirement does not necessarily preclude existing staff in the
Technology Department from advancing into that area: the College
makes available the requisite training, to those seeking to
broaden and keep current their knowledge-base, as part of their
professional development. But the initiative has to come from
the faculty member. Some of the faculty members, to Ms. Zimmer's
understanding, have taken up such initiatives. The grievor, to
1996 at least, never had. The lay-off notice came to the grievor
in January 1996. The grievor testified that he has no
recollection of an express offer being made to him to bring up
6
his computer skills prior to the actual lay-off notice, but he
acknowledges that he did in fact have no interest in doing so at
that time. The grievor testified that he still was doing any of
his design or drafting work manually, using the traditional
drafting-board, because he "found it easier" that way.
Basically, the grievor at the time of his lay-off notice had no
background in computers or their application whatsoever. In the
period January to April 1996, the grievor took an evening course
at the College in Computer Numerical Control. In the fall of
1996 he commenced the College course in Auto CAD II, but was told
he needed to go back and take Auto CAD I (the basic course). He
did that, obtaining a "C" grade. The following semester (January
1997) the grievor took the Auto CAD II course. He indicates that
disruption in his personal life intervened, however, and he
failed to complete the course. The grievor testified that he
subsequently tried again, but was unable to get his final project
off the disk. He says that the teacher was unable to retrieve
his work either, so that he could not assign the grievor a grade.
Accordingly, the grievor to this day has not successfully
completed Auto CAD II. Notwithstanding that, the grievor notes,
he was hired in the spring of 1997 on a sessional basis by
Centennial College to teach what apparently was a basic course in
Auto CAD.
On that latter point, we would note, that teaching period at
Centennial was not part of the qualifications that the College
had at the time that the critical assessment of the grievor's
7
qualifications had to be made. We have no details of that
course but the point in any event is that the invitation to teach
it at another College arise a good deal later, after the grievor
had made efforts at least to upgrade his computerized drafting
skills.
As of the time of the lay-off, the grievor had no background
which would suggest that he could teach a computer-based course
of that kind. As arbitrator Swan put it in his Seneca College
(Morgulis) decision dated August 19th, 1994 and upheld on
judicial review (brought by the Union on other grounds) on March
4th, 1996, Union's application for judicial review dismissed:
As we read the collective agreement, it requires that
the displacing Professor be qualified immediately to
perform the requirements of the position, and that
individual may not claim, for example, time for
retraining or re-qualifying prior to taking up the
duties. But the words of the collective agreement must
be understood in the context of teaching in a College,
where there is normally a summer break to prepare for
classes beginning again in September, and where similar
breaks occur between terms at other occasions in the
year. There is also a provision for preparation time,
and the collective agreement must be understood in
light of the availability of such preparation periods
to allow the Professor to brush up on courses which he
or she has not taught for a while.
(page 15)
It is the basic qualification itself that the grievor was lacking
at the time of the lay-off here. The competence, skill and
experience to teach Computer-Aided Design at both the basic and
advanced level of all of these courses being taught by Mr. Young
was not simply an "ideal" for the College, as Mr. Richards
characterizes it, but the essence of the courses themselves. Nor
does that "essence" reflect a standard of course content
8
arbitrarily imposed by the College upon existing staff at the
time of a lay-off, as Mr. Richards also argues. The evolution of
that course content, and thus of the qualifications required to
deliver it, was a simple reflection of the state of the art as it
had evolved in industry. And, we would have to add, that
evolution would have been apparent to anyone wishing to stay
fully current in the design field, and to protect one's
versatility as a teacher in the Technology Department. In the
case of the present grievor it is unfortunately clear that the
work left to be done as of the point of the projected lay-off was
a great deal more than "mere brushing up". Computer-assisted
Design was a whole new discipline, distinct from (although drawn
from the principles of) traditional manual drafting, and the
grievor had not even begun to equip himself for a move in that
direction.
For the foregoing reasons, therefore, and based on the
evidence as it existed at the time of the lay-off, the board has
no alternative but to dismiss the present grievance.
Dated at Toronto this 23rd day of September, 1998
M. G. Mitchnick
I dissent (see attached)"S. Nicholson"
S. Nicholson
I concur"R. Gallivan"
R. Gallivan