HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 00-12-04û
ðÍÙÛÐðÍÙÛÐ
AWARD
In this matter, the Union claims that the College is in violation of Article 6 of the Collective
Agreement, which concerns the class definition of a Professor, and requests that Mr. J. Bradshaw
and Ms. J. Luke be moved into Local 556's bargaining unit as Professors and that all rights
granted by the Collective Agreement be applied to them. The Union further claims that their
seniority should be applied retroactively, Atthe hearing, the Union also claimed, in the alternative,
that Mr. Bradshaw and Ms. Luke should be classified as Instructors. The College denied the
grievance and maintained that at all material times the position in issue was that of a Technologist
B which is part of the support staff agreement.
I now turn to the background facts in this matter about which there is very little dispute.
In the first semester of the nursing program at George Brown College there is a program referred
to as Nursing 1003 which is divided into four sections: 1)simulations, 2) psychomotor skills, 3)
community, and 4) hospital. The course consists of self-directed learning modules and small and
large group discussions along with supervised skills in a laboratory and hospital setting. In this
matter, we are concerned with the psychomotorskills section of the course. That course is provided
in a laboratory which has a simulated hospital setting in the nursing resource centre. Nursing
students are assigned to a lab group of 12 to 15 students for semester weeks 2 until 9. Each lab
group has a two hour lab period perweek. In addition, the students have one hour of independent
practice. The duties and responsibilities of the position in issue are set out in sequencing
document which was filed as an exhibit in these proceedings. The students are required to read
a series of articles or reference materials, or watch audio-visual tapes before class and then attend
a class with a person currently classified as a Technologist B where what they have learned by
reading the references and watching the videotapes is reviewed. The Technologist B answers
questions and demonstrates the skills required, e.g. bed making or taking blood pressure.
Ms. Paula Price, in November 1998, was chair of the program development for community
health programs which included nursing. As chair of program development, her primary
responsibility was for program development in the area of community health. She was involved in
the development of new post-secondary programs as well as contract training in the health field.
Prior to becoming the chair of program development, Ms. Price was the chair of nursing. When
Anne McKenzie became chair of nursing, Ms. Price worked with her in the planning and the
introduction of a Technologist B role in Nursing 1003. In June of 1998, the nursing program
considered increasing the student enrollment; part of the challenge was to increase enrollment
without increasing costs, since the department had a deficit of $250,000.00. Underthe program
that existed at that time an increase in students would increase the deficit. Ms. Price testified that
the vice-president academic of the College asked Ms. Price and Ms. Mckenzie to consider a
collaborative program with Ryerson or alternatively to consider a way to decrease the deficit. To
that end, a meeting was held with the Faculty in June of 1998, and a number of ideas were
discussed and considered. Particularly, the meeting examined options to redesign the program
that would allow for more students while decreasing the cost per student and maintaining the
quality of the learning. The deficit was a significant consideration and there was a suggestion that
the College would not support an increasing deficit in the nursing program as well as other
programs.
During the meeting, a suggestion was made to introduce a Technologist B role in the lab
or nursing resource centre and Ms. Price inferred from the discussion that the Faculty supported
a pilot project and would assess the effectiveness of such a project. There was some concern
as to the amount of contact that students had with someone in the lab, therefore, according to Ms.
Price, the introduction of a technologistwould increase the amount of contact that students would
have with someone in the lab. Ms. Price testified that the meeting decided to support a pilot project
(which is denied by the Union) and that Grace Graham, one of the Professors, who had been
teaching the course for a number of years, would work on developing a plan to introduce the role
of a Technologist. Ms. Graham worked on developing the program during June and July and also
worked with Ms. Price and Ms. Mckenzie in developing the duties and responsibilities of the
Technologist B, as well as modifying the existing course to accommodate the introduction of a
Technologist B. Mr. John Bradshaw was hired over the Summer and a pilot project was
implemented in September 1998, and proved to be successful. The pilot project currently has
ceased to be a pilot project and is being introduced in semesters 2, 3 and 4 in the Fall. Ms. Price
testified that starting in September more senior students will be with a Technologists rather than
with a Professor and while the course has psychomotor components it will be a different course.
Ms. Price stated that the introduction of a Technologist resulted in cost savings. The
College had examined the various job categories and job duties to see which were most
appropriate at describing the work in the laboratory, and determined to classify the job as a
Technologist B. The role of the Technologist B is to develop and do demonstrations and to explain
the correct procedures and theoretical principles and to assist in student evaluation. Ms. Prince
indicated that research was done concerning the categories of persons who worked in other college
laboratories and other college programs and itwas determined that Technologists B were used in
the lab to support student learning at other colleges. The nursing program for psychomotor skills
was based on self-directed learning modules and the use of Technologists supported that learning,
and while Technologists dealt with students that was not inconsistent with self-learning.
-4-
When cross-examined about the meeting with faculty, Ms. Price conceded that there was
no formal vote taken but indicated that only one person appeared not to be supportive. She was
of the opinion there was a consensus. She also indicated that at the meeting it was determined
the position would be given to a registered nurse because of the knowledge required to support
student learning of psychomotor skills and that knowledge is only possessed by registered nurses.
Mr. Bradshaw was recommended by the Faculty because he had worked as a peer tutor and
people were satisfied with his performance. He had also graduated from the program and was a
registered nurse. Ms. Price maintained that the introduction of Technologist B to support student
learning was something that was new. Ms. Price also stated that at the time of the grievance no
Instructors were used.
Grace Graham, who has been employed by the College for approximately 16 years, and
has been a Professor for 15 years, is also a nurse. She is the Professor of Nursing 1003 and
taught in that course for approximately six years. She testified there are four components to the
course .......................................................................
changes in the Summer of 1998 with Anne McKenzie to see whether a Technologist could be used
in the lab component of the course for psychomotor skills. Ms. Graham visited Mohawk College
and phoned all other colleges, but only seven of the colleges returned her calls. She visited
Mohawk College where a Technologist had been used in the laboratory for approximately ten years
and worked under the indirect supe~ision of a Professor. The students at Mohawk came to the
lab prepared and the Technologist answered student's questions, and, as well, the students at
Mohawk practised under the direction of the Technologist. Aisc the Technologist at Mohawk did
skill testing for several different skills. Ms. Graham followed up with various other colleges which
also used Technologists in different ways.
ÛÉÉÓÉÈÛÎÙ×
-6-
Copies for faculty were placed in their mailboxes, but no feedback was received from the faculty.
Ms. Graham had taught Nursing 1003 and prior to the fall of 1998 the Professors were in
the lab with the students, but after the fall of 1998 the Technologists were in the lab. She admitted
that part of her duties prior to September of 1998 were in the lab. Also, prior to the Fall of 1998,
students were self-directed and there was modularlearning. Students would have to prepare their
objectives prior to coming to the lab. They had textbooks and videos and then would come to a
clarification lab where questions would be answered. The students came to the lab prepared and
the person in the lab would clarify any questions they had and would demonstrate skills, but there
were no formal lectures in the lab.
Ms. Graham stated that her role in the lab was to clarify, demonstrate skills, and answer
questions. She also did a supervised practice involving patient care situations, where the students
would perform various skills. Thiswas a practical application of skills and Ms. Graham supervised
their skill performance. The students were paired and went through the various situations that were
assigned and Ms. Graham evaluated the students to see if they applied the principles and knew
what they were doing. In addition, she taught the three other components of the course.
Ms. Graham admitted that in the lab the Technologist did not do anything different from
what she had done. The work in the lab involves clarification and supervised practice. Also, the
students are tested. There is an orientation done by a Professor when the students come to the
lab. The Professor gives an overviewof modularlearning. The students spend four hours with the
Professor and then two hours with a Technologist. Ms. Graham maintained that the Professor has
overall responsibility forthe lab and allocates three hours perweek to meet with the Technologists
-7-
to look at the particular skills, the difficulties and concerns about students, and facilitation for the
Technologist.
Ms. Graham monitors student progress and meets with the Technologist weekly to review
the students, particularly those students having difficulties, such as being unprepared, being late,
not attending, and conduct. Ms. Graham provided orientation to all of the Technologists which
included an overview of the course and specifically their focus on psychomotor skills. She stated
that the Technologists do not have a teaching role, but clarify matters for students. In the
clarification sessions the Technologists demonstrate skills. Patient care situations are used for
supervised practices, and Ms. Graham drafts those situations. She devised them initially and then
revised them after feedback from the Technologists and other Professors. She also instructs the
Technologists to fill out a grade sheet concerning whether the students are satisfactory or
unsatisfactory and instructs them to grade conduct as well as performance skills. Ms. Graham
prepares the tests and the Technologists administer them. She stated that theTechnologist's role
was not a teaching role, because the learning is self-directed and the students are expected to
come prepared for the labs and are responsible to complete their tasks on time.
Ms. Graham reviews each skill with the students and they have access to her notes. She
gives them references, materials, and, as well, she recommends that they preview videos. She
meets with the students weekly, and informally on a daily basis. Ms. Graham oversees the
students and the Technologists attends the orientation sessions. When there are problems in the
lab the Technologists contact Ms. Graham and the students will meet with her or another
Professor. When it is necessary she writes a progress report. For example, when a student was
harassing a Technologist, she met with the student and a counsellor and subsequently the student
-8-
was expelled.
Technologists work part-time and not full-time, and peer tutors are also used to facilitate
students learning of skills. The peer students both watch the students and also demonstrate. Peer
tutors do not give grades and if students are not performing well they meet with peer tutors for
practice.
The parties filed a course outline with respect to Nursing 1003 which was very extensive.
The outline contained a course description, course outcomes, delivery methods, testing policy,
summative evaluations, formative evaluation and a list of textbooks for the course. This document
known as the "Pink Book" was written and updated by Professors and revisions were made in all
its various components with feedback from other Professors, students and Technologists.
Professor Graham indicated that the Technologist had no responsibility for revising the Pink Book.
Professors selected reading materials, videos, and patient care scenarios for use by the students.
The Technologists have no responsibility whatsoeverforthe reading materials or videos and while
they may make suggestions, the ultimate responsibility lies with the Professors. Professor Graham
is the only full-time Professor.
Also, Professors write composite tests; those tests are not written by the Technologists and
while they may raise concerns, it is up to the Professor to either add to or revise the test. The
Professors are also responsible for the promotion policy. If students fail the comprehensive test
they can appeal, and a further test may be given by another Technologist or Professor.
Professors are also responsible for the mid-term evaluation and for determining the final mark.
×ÖÖÐÙÓ×ÎÈ
ÖÍÊÛ
-10-
seemed a logical choice in this situation. Ms. Henry also had an earlier experience at George
Brown College with responsibilities in the laboratory and because of that experience she felt that
the Professor was not needed in the laboratory setting. She was of the view that the learning in
the laboratory concerned basic psychomotor skills which could be managed by a Technologist,
who was also a registered nurse. She also felt that Technologists might be more skilled because
they might also be practising as nurses.
While Ms. Henty was in the lab with higher semester students, she was aware of the
Technologist in Nursing 1003 because of the job description and because of the modular learning
package which described the activities in the laboratory. She also occasionally visited the
laboratory and sat in for a few minutes to see what was going on. In those instances,
Technologists would demonstrate the skills and then supervise the students while they were doing
the practice skills, and clarify the situation where required.
She also maintained that a Professor was responsible for the other components of the
course including the simulations, community and hospital components. Also, Professors who were
involved in these particular sections were responsible for the curriculum, student evaluation, and
the overall management of the course, and for those aspects of the course that required a higher
level of cognitive function, whereas the Technologist was responsible for simple psychomotorskills
that did not require an advanced knowledge of the teaching and learning principles that were
required of a Professor. The other components of the course took place in a classroom or in a
community agency.
When cross-examined, Ms. Henty stated that she supported the change because it made
the course more efficient. She admitted the pay structure was such that a Technologist's costs
were less than that of a Professor and by using a Technologist it would also maintain a lower
student:teacher ratio. She repeated that in the lab the students use simple psychomotorskills and
they are basic skills requiring some theory. Because it is a self-learning module, the theory is
learned by the student.
Ms. Delynne Struyk has been a nursing Professor since 1972 and has taught in the
psychomotor skills section. Ms. Struyk is a graduate nurse who has a bachelors degree in
psychology and political science and also has an education degree and has qualified with the
Ontario College of Teachers. She was a staff nurse at the Hospital for Sick Children and taught
clinical work at various downtown hospitals. She also taught at George Brown College. Ms. Struyk
taught the psychomotor skills prior to Mr. Bradshaw. Ms. Struyk maintained that if skills are taught
as tasks by a Technologist, it is not sufficient, and she claimed that nurses must be trained to
recognize the health implications of all the psychomotor skills. She maintained that nurses can't
be trained to perform skills as simple tasks only, because it would jeopardize the safety of the
patients. She claimed that nursing Professors have always taught psychomotor skills to students
with the accompanying background knowledge priorto taking these students into hospitals for real
life applications.
When cross-examined Ms. Struyk admitted that psychomotor skills are taught in five of the
other semesters, but these were more advanced skills and not the skills taught by Mr. Bradshaw.
Ms. Struyk said that at the time of the faculty meeting she was on a leave of absence and
when she returned she received a numberof unsolicited complaints from the faculty who wanted
ÍÊ
È
ÙÍÏÌÇÈ×Ê
-14-
the laboratory is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
Mr. Bradshaw testified that generally in the laboratory there is no Professor or supervisor
present. On occasion, when students are on a field trip, a Professor may come to the lab to assist
with supervised practice. In the fourth week of the course, a Professor is present to evaluate the
students' performance. Where students perform unsatisfactorily in the supervised practice they
may be given a slip by either Mr. Bradshaw or the Professor which entitles them to the assistance
of a peertutor to assist them in the lab.
There is also a comprehensive test where each student is evaluated separately. The
comprehensive test is usually given by the Professor and a Technologist B. The students are
given a scenario involving patient care. Situations are given to students during orientation to be
used by them as a practice guide so when they go to the laboratory they can look at the situations
and use them as examples of what they might encounter when they are in a hospital. The scenario
for the comprehensive test is similar to these situations. Mr. Bradshaw evaluates the
comprehensive test. Where students fail the comprehensive test they are required to do another
two hours of practice with a peer tutor and then they are retested by someone else either a
Technologist or a Professor. Where a student fails a second time they fail the course and are
required to take it again.
When cross-examined, Mr. Bradshaw admitted that it was his responsibility to ensurethat
the laboratoryfacility was property stocked although he does notdo any ordering. He also ensures
that the laboratory is in proper working order and everything is set up in accordance with the
objectives for the applicable module.
-15-
Mr. Bradshaw admitted that Grace Graham is a member of the faculty and teaches Nursing
1003. She is in charge of the entire laboratory and oversees all of the Technologists. She is
responsible to update the course book. She meets with a Technologist once per week and also
informally. If there is a problem in the lab Mr. Bradshaw gets advice from Ms. Graham. Mr.
Bradshaw also conceded that Ms. Graham updated the course material and he has no
responsibility for the course outline, the course description, or the modules. These are all
prepared by Ms. Graham. He also has no responsibility for sequencing, comprehensive tests and
patient care situations; again all these are prepared by faculty. Also, the reading material and
audiovisual materials are predetermined and selected by a faculty member. The Technologist B
has no authority to change the videos. Mr. Bradshaw was not involved in a decision to change the
sixteen week semester to a fourteen week semester. Any changes to the sequencing document
and evaluation forms are prepared by the faculty.
Students spend four hours with the Professor and two hours in the laboratory. Mr.
Bradshaw assists in assessing students with respect to their practice skills, both in week four and
week six of the course and also on the comprehensive test. He also shows his Blue Book to the
Professor and the Professor gives the student the overall mark for the course. As well, the
Professor does a mid-term evaluation and a final evaluation.
Mr. Bradshaw admitted that the course book involves module learning and there is self-
directed study time. He maintains the facilitator is referred to in the material as a Technologist B.
The students do the learning themselves by reading and watching videos.
Mr. Bradshaw admitted that the role oftheTechnologistwas developed by Ms. Graham and
-16-
it reflects the duties and responsibilities of the Technologist. Mr. Bradshaw is not involved in the
first week of the course when the students are provided with the course book and told how the
module learning is to be done. It is a Professor who does the overview of the module learning and
the overall purpose of the psychomotor skills lab, and when the students come to see Mr.
Bradshaw, he reviews the psychomotor skills with them. A Professor introduces the psychomotor
skills and Mr. Bradshaw does any clarification. He does demonstrations in each lab and that is
what he was told to do. He focusses on the psychomotor skills. Mr. Bradshaw admitted that the
videos also contain demonstrations and that the students in some cases will have seen a
demonstration before they see his demonstration. Also, each student is assigned to a Professor
for a semester.
On re-examination, Mr. Bradshaw indicated that it is more fruitful to watch someone do a
demonstration than to watch it being done on a video because the details are not readily visible on
the video.
The parties also filed job descriptions for both a Professor and Technologist B which are
as follows:
PROFESSOR
Under the direction of the senior academic officer of the College or designate, a Professor is
responsible for providing academic leadership and for developing an effective leaning environment
for students. This includes:
a) The design/revision/updating of courses, including:
consulting with prog~m and course directors and other faculty
members, advisory committees, accrediting agencies, potential
employers and students;
-17-
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 orapproving textbooks and learning matenals.
b) The teaching of assigned courses, including:
ensunng student awareness of course objectives, approach and
evaluation techniques;
carrying out regulariy 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 instructors' teaching
assignments;
participating in the work of curriculum and other consultative committees
as requested.
In addition, the Professor may, from time to time, be called upon to contribute to otherareas ancillary
to the role of Professor, such as student recruitment and selection, time-tabling, facility design,
professional development, student employment, and control of supplies and equipment.
TECHNOLOGIST B
SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITY
Position incumbents provide technical expertise of a specialized nature to faculties, administrative
areas and students, using independent judgement to determine services and methods required to
meet user needs.
TYPICAL DUTIES
Designs and/or develops equipment, systems, facilities, materials, etc. to meet user output
requirements.
Plans, organizes and conducts experiments and demonstrations explaining correct
procedures and theoretical principals involved.
Evaluates equipment and other resources and makes recommendations prior to
purchase.
Controls supply inventories and budgets.
May assist in student evaluations in relation to learning activities in which the
Technologist B takes part.
JOB DIFFICULTY (COMPLEXITY/JUDGEMENT)
-18-
Work involves the performance of varied, non-routine complex tasks that normally require different
and unrelated processes and methods. Duties performed require a significant degree of judgement.
Problem-solving involves interpreting complex data or refining work methods and techniques to be
used.
GUIDANCE RECEIVED (GUIDELINE/REVIEW)
Work is performed in accordance with procedures and past practices which may be adapted and
modified to meet particular situations and/or problems. Supervisor is available to assist in resolving
problems. Work assignments are subject to a general form of review for achievement of specific
objectives and adherence to established deadlines.
COMMUNICATIONS (PURPOSE/LEVEL)
Work involves contacts forthe purpose of providing guidance, instruction ortechnical adviceorforthe
purpose of explaining various matters by interpreting procedures or policy. Contacts are primarily
with employees at higher levels within the College and with individuals at middle management levels
outside the College.
KNOWLEDGE (TRAINING-SKILL)
Up to five yeas of practical experience. Required skills normally acquired through attainment of a
three year Community College diploma or equivalent. Work requires the ability to organize complex
statistical information and to understand and apply elementary principles of a science or professional
discipline. May operate very complex electronic instruments, laboratory orcomputer equipment.
WORKING CONDITIONS (MANUALiVISUALIENVIRONMENTAL)
Work requires light manual effort and physical exertion e.g. prolonged standing, sitting, walking,
climbing stairs, using light tools and/or handling light weight materials (Occasional- 10% to 30% of
the time)
Moderate visual concentration required. Required to focus on small areas orobjects forshort periods
oftime, i.e. up to one hour. (Rare less than 10% ofthe time)
Disagreeable working conditions. Exposure to dirt, noise and a variety of weather elements.
Exposure to potentially hazardous conditions where there is some possibility ofinjury. (Occasional-
10% to 30% of the time)
Based on the evidence, the Union maintained that the issue in this case is whetherthejob
of a Technologist B in the laboratory is appropriately classified or should be returned to the
classification of a Professor since a Professor taught those skills for well over a decade. The Union
submits that the teaching of psychomotor skills was taken out of the academic unit and improperly
-19-
assigned to the support staff, and, accordingly, the Union seeks a declaration that the work falls
within the class definition of Professor, or in the alternative the class definition of Instructor, but is
not a Technologist B. The Union submits that the core functions of the job fall within the academic
unit.
The Union asserts that groups of students come to the lab during the week and the
Technologist has an office in the laboratory and is available for additional help. Students do one
hour of practice with a peer tutor and also do an hour of individual practice. The Technologist B
ensures that they have done the individual practice and makes note of it. The Union concedes
that there is independentself-learning in a modularpackage and each module is set up in the same
fashion. Students prepare priorto coming to the laboratory, and in the laboratory the Technologist
B demonstrates skills for students and asks them to do a return demonstration to show that they
have correctly learned the skill. The students then may ask questions; there is no othervenue for
the students to ask questions or seek answers. The Technologist B is the person who introduces
new material to the students. These skills are also important for the patients' health and safety,
as well as that of the nurse.
The Union submits that these skills are not simply mechanical skills and there is a health
and safety component which encompasses real life situations. It is through the direction,
guidance, and teaching of the Technologist B that the students become familiarwith the material.
The Union argues that the students learn from first hand experience and they don't learn by
reading the materials or watching a video. These skills are built upon in later semesters, where
more advanced skills are taught by a Technologist B.
-20-
The Union further submits that the Technologist B helps students who are not successful
in the computer tests. Mr. Bradshaw checks their books, makes sure they have the correct
information, and helps them to get a better understanding of the course objectives. The Union
maintains this form of tutoring falls within the job functions of a Professor or an Instructor. The
Union argues that if the students ultimately fail, they are required to repeat the whole Nursing 1003
course, and, therefore, where a student does not understand and cannot perform the required
skills, there are serious consequences.
Students are also evaluated in another sense. The Union points to Mr. Bradshaw's book
which indicates the numberof times the studenttakes the test. As well, the supervised practices
in the lab are evaluated by Mr. Bradshaw and he records whether the skills are satisfactorily
performed. There is no supervisor or other faculty in the lab with Mr. Bradshaw other than Ms.
Hentywho has been there for a limited period of time. In effect, Mr. Bradshaw does notwork under
supervision. During weeks 4 and 6, the supervised practice is done by either Mr. Bradshaw or a
Professor and they perform this function equally. Both the Professor and Mr. Bradshawdiscuss
any unsatisfactory areas with the student and then a peer tutor is given a slip to enable the student
to practice with the peertutor.
In the eighth week of the course, the students take a comprehensive test. The student is
given a patient care scenario and is required to exhibit certain skills which are not mechanical. Mr.
Bradshaw evaluates the students comprehensive tests and has failed students. Where astudent
fails, they fail the whole course. Thus, a student can fail a course based on Mr. Bradshaw's
evaluation and, accordingly, the Union argues he has a responsibility for evaluation which cannot
be underestimated; it is a real responsibility.
-21-
Mr. Bradshaw also introduces a number of significant skills to the students and there is no
complementary information in the othercourses about these skills. Accordingly, the Union submits
that Mr. Bradshaw demonstrates more than just basic mechanical skills; these skillswere formerly
taught by a Professor. The Union maintains it is a violation of the Collective Agreement to have
support staff perform the job function that is to be done by a Professor. That a registered nurse
is required to teach the skills, indicates that the College requires someone with the appropriate
knowledge to perform the tasks in issue.
The Union claims thatthe core functions of the job of Professor are filled by Mr. Bradshaw.
The Union further submits, based on some of the cases, that Mr. Bradshaw is with the students
in relation to the course content and is therefore a teacher. The Union agrees that Mr. Bradshaw
was not involved in the design of the course, but is of the opinion that his job functions are those
of a Professor.
Finally, in the alternative, the Union argues that if Mr. Bradshaw does not fitwithin the class
definition of Professor, he is an Instructor and that lie certainly does not fit into the class definition
of aTechnologist B. The Union maintains that Mr. Bradshawimparts new material, new ideas, and
new skills without supervision, and the core functions and core duties are more appropriate to the
academic bargaining unit as a Professor or Instructor, and, therefore, Mr. Bradshaw should be
reclassified and placed in the academic bargaining unit as a Professor or Instructor.
The College submits that on the face of the grievance, the remedy that the Union seeks is
that Mr. Bradshaw be moved into the academic bargaining unit as a Professor and there is no
mention on the face of the grievance that the Union seeks a remedy that Mr. Bradshaw be treated
as an Instructor. The College maintains that the parties never considered the Instructor position
in the grievance procedure and the face of the grievance indicates the Union never considered
having Mr. Bradshaw classified as an Instructor and therefore the Union's argument in that regard
should not be considered.
The College argues that the onus is on the Union to show Mr. Bradshaw is a Professor,
and because a Professorformerly did the work doesn't mean that it is Professor's work within the
meaning of the class definition, or that the College is precluded from assigning work to a
Technologist. The College maintains that it reorganized and assigned the duties for legitimate
reasons, which include the program being in a deficit, coupled with a mandate that the deficit be
reduced. There was a risk that if the deficit could not be reduced, faculty would be laid off and the
nursing program would be in jeopardy. A meeting was held to deal with different solutions and it
was discussed with the faculty, accordingly, the College submits that an inference be drawn that
there was a suggestion in the meeting that a Technologist Be used in the laboratory. The College
further claims that the use of a Technologist was successful and Professors are no longer in the
lab so that teaching hours were freed up for the Professors. Also student enrollment was
increased resulting in more revenue and further resulting in fewer students with the Professors.
As a result of the reduction in the deficit, no-one was laid off and the students benefitted.
The College submits that Mr. Bradshaw was only assigned the laboratory component of
the course and responsibility for the complete course rested with the Professor; full responsibility
for the laboratory also remained with the Professor and not with the Technologist. The Professor
regularly met with the Technologist, both formally and informally, regarding what was to occur in
the laboratory. For example, where students were failing, it was discussed at the meeting and if
-23-
problems arose Mr. Bradshaw would take the problem to the Professor.
The College further argues, that there was a self-learning module and students were
expected to come to the laboratory prepared. The theory was self-directed and Mr. Bradshaw had
no role in the teaching of the theory. Also, prior to coming to the lab the students would have to
complete a computer test of theirtheoretical knowledge. The College maintains there was modular
learning with the students taking responsibility for theirown learning. The teachers facilitated the
student learning and the Technologist was not a traditional teacher or Professor but was merely
a facilitator or clarifier. Since students come to the laboratory prepared, Mr. Bradshaw's role was
to clarify and physically demonstrate the skills with the students doing a return demonstration
which Mr. Bradshaw observed. Mr. Bradshaw made suggestions and clarified issues. The College
submits that Mr. Bradshaw never used the term "teach" in his evidence and used the term "clarify"
throughout.
With respect to the other modules, there is a distinction between the Professor and the
Technologist. In other sections, the classroom is more akin to a traditional classroom with
discussions with the Professor and lectures or seminars. There is also more theory, written
assignments are prepared and read, and there is a marked difference between a Professor and
a Technologist. There is no discretion in the lab for Technologists and the work and job functions
are prescribed in the course material. The same thing cannot be said forother components of the
course. The other components are more cognitive, there is more theory, and the Professor has
both discretion and latitude when teaching. Also, the Professor uses more traditional teaching
methods.
-24-
The College also submits that Ms. Graham, during orientation with the Technologists, told
them not to teach the course or the theory, but merely to give demonstrations and to clarify. The
College claims that Mr. Bradshaw did not evaluate the students, but merely watched the students
perform to see if they could properly perform the task. There was no objective assessment. Also,
Mr. Bradshaw had no role in preparing materials, ratherthese were prepared by a Professor and
the materials included what was to be done in the laboratory. The Professor determined the
resources that were used, wrote the course material, the patient care scenarios, the computer
tests, and the comprehensive tests, and Mr. Bradshaw had no role in designing the course material
or preparing the tests. The Professor was the person who was responsible for the course, and the
Technologist merely facilitated the learning of psychomotor skills. Mr. Bradshaw did not carry out
regularly scheduled instruction, didn't provide fora learning environment, and had no responsibility
fortheoverall assessment. Ultimately, itwas Ms. Graham who assigned the mid-term and the final
mark.
And, finally, the College arguesthat Mr. Bradshaw was not an Instructor and that his duties
and responsibilities fell within the Technologist's standard. The College stated that Mr. Bradshaw,
as a registered nurse, had expertise in nursing skills and the students learned psychomotor skills
which Mr. Bradshaw facilitated and clarified, but if there was a problem it went to the Professor.
By way of reply, the Union submitted that prior to this matter coming on for hearing the
Union advised the College that it was alternatively seeking to have Mr. Bradshaw classified as an
Instructor and that the College should not be surprised by the Union's argument. The Union also
submitted that the parties did not turn their minds to the classification of Instructor because there
were no Instructors in the nursing faculty, but that this board of arbitration should consider the
-25-
alternate argument.
Afterduly considering the evidence and argument, it is our view that Mr. Bradshaw's duties
and responsibilities clearly fall within the definition of Technologist B. Mr. Bradshaw plans,
organizes and conducts demonstrations of the psychomotorskills and explains correct procedures
and theoretical principles involved to the students. He also assists in student evaluations in relation
to learning activities in which he takes part, all within the meaning of the class definition for support
staff; he does not have overall responsibility for evaluationswhich are devised and prepared bythe
Professor who does have the overall responsibility. Prima facie Mr. Bradshaw is a Technologist
B.
As to the position of a Professor, it is also clear that Mr. Bradshaw does not fall within that
definition. Initially, we were of the view that the College is entitled, pursuant to Article 6 of the
Collective Agreement, to plan, direct and control operations, facilities, programs, courses,
programs, systems and procedures and to determine complement, organization, methods and the
number, location and classification of personnel required from time to time. Pursuant to that
Article the College has, for legitimate reasons, reorganized the teaching of Nursing 1003 and, in
effect, taken one aspect of that course and removed it from the full time responsibility of Professors
by assigning it to a Technologist B. That Professors may have performed the work previously,
does not mean that the work which was assigned to a Technologist B is that of a Professor. Itwas
only a segment of the work which was performed by Professors in the past and does not, in and
of itself, constitute thework of a Professor. The duties and responsibilities of a Professor must
be viewed as a whole and performing individual segments of a Professor's former duties does not
make the person performing those individual segments a Professor. Each part does not equal the
ÍÊ
-27-
in relation to their learning activities. That was the sum and substance of what he did and his
duties clearly did not fall within the range of duties required of a Professor. Mr. Bradshaw merely
facilitated and clarified matters that were in the course requirements and which had been self-
learned by students - that was the extent of any teaching and, in our view, did not constitute
teaching withinthe meaning of the class definition of Professor. He performed demonstrations and
assisted in student evaluations, which are duties contained in the class definition of Technologist
B. Further, any evaluation that Mr. Bradshaw did was limited, and was subject to the overall control
of the Professor in the course, who devised and was ultimately responsible for the tests that were
given. The mere demonstrating and the limited evaluation that he did, in ourview, do not constitute
the work of a Professor within that class definition.
As a practical matter, the psychomotor skills segment of the course is one of four
components in the course and within that segment the students spend two of six hours in the
laboratory. Even without factoring in the time that students spend self-learning, it is irrefutable that
Mr. Bradshawis involved in only a small segment of the total Nursing 1003 coursewhen compared
to the role of the Professor who has a much greater role. And while it is true that students learn as
a result of Mr. Bradshaw's role in demonstrating and clarifying, it is significant, as counsel for the
College points out, thateven Mr. Bradshaw did not describewhat hedid as teaching. Any teaching
that Mr. Bradshaw did was different in quality and quantity when compared to what is expected of
a Professor. Also his role in evaluating is also of a limited nature, since he does not prepare the
tests; some of the tests are marked by computer, and the overall responsibility for the tests and
evaluations reside with the Professor. Given the limited nature of Mr. Bradshaw's duties and his
limited role in the nursing course, it is virtually impossible to conclude that he performs any of the
duties of a Professor and, more particularly, the core duties of a Professor within the meaning of
-28-
the decided cases.
Further, it is our view, the grievance did not request the remedy that Mr. Bradshaw be
assigned as an Instructor. The remedy requested was quite specific, that is, the Union requested
that Mr. Bradshaw and Ms. Luke be given the job title of a Professor, and the grievance made no
mention of an Instructor. The matterdid not proceed through the grievance procedure on the basis
that Mr. Bradshaw should have been classified as an Instructor and, thus, that classification was
not discussed by the parties; there was no reason for doing so, given the express language of the
grievance. While a board of arbitration should not be unduly technical about the wording of a
grievance, it is at least incumbent upon the Union to indicate the substance of the grievance. The
Union is not to be permitted at a later date, just prior to arbitration, to completely change horses
in midstream and raise issues not contemplated by the grievance, which are not consistent with
the language of the grievance, which cannot reasonably be included in the grievance and which
are an entirely separate and distinct from the subject of the original grievance.
Counsel for the Union suggests that the College was made aware of the Union's inclusion
of an Instructor in this matter prior to the hearing. However, the grievance did not wend its way
through the grievance procedure with that in mind, and the parties had no opportunity to discuss
the issue of an Instructor. Nor is the issue of an Instructor something that is included within the
Union's attemptto have Mr. Bradshawclassified as a Professor. By merely informing counsel just
prior to the hearing that the Union now seeks the remedy of an Instructor does not, in our view,
constitute an amendment to the grievance so as to grant a board of arbitration authority to deal
with the issue as to whether the grievor is an Instructor; it is simply too remote from the written
grievance.
-29-
Notwithstanding our view that the classifying of Mr. Bradshaw as an Instructor was not
within the purview of the grievance filed, we propose to comment briefly on the Union's argument.
Quite briefly, Mr. Bradshaw's duties and responsibilities do not, in anyway, resemblethe duties and
responsibilities set out in the class definition of an Instructor. Again, his duties clearly fall within the
range of duties assigned to a Technologist B. Mr. Bradshaw did not instruct students within the
meaning of the class definition of Instructor. For example, he did not ensure student awareness
of course objectives and instructional approach. Any evaluation that he did was on a limited basis,
where the Professors had the overall responsibility and where much of the evaluation was done
with a computer program. He did not carry out regularly scheduled instruction, but merely clarified
and demonstrated, nor did Mr. Bradshaw tutor and academically counsel students. He did not
perform the core duties of an Instructor within the class definition of Instructor.
Given the limited nature of Mr. Bradshaw's duties and his limited role in the nursing course,
it is virtually impossible to conclude that he performs the core duties of a Professor or Instructor
within the meaning of the decided cases
For all of these reasons, the grievance is dismissed.
ùíîùçê
ç
ìÛÕ×
Û
ÍÖ ÍÖ
ìÛÕ×
ÛÉ
ìÛÕ×
ÓÖ
ìÛÕ×
ÍÖ
ÍÖ
øÓÉÉ×ÎÈ
ØÓÉÉ×ÎÈ