HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 04-04-16IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
SENECA COLLEGE
(the “College”)
and
OPSEU LOCAL 560
(the “Union”)
REGARDING A UNION GRIEVANCE
RESPECTING THE
CLASSIFICATION OF INSTRUCTOR POSITIONS IN THE
SCHOOL OF AVIATION AND FLIGHT TECHNOLOGY
GRIEVANCE NO. 01C111
BOARD OF ARBITRATION: Pamela Cooper Picher, Chairperson
Michael Riddell, College Nominee
Pamela Munt-Madill, Union Nominee
Appearing for the College:
William LeMay- Counsel
Kavita Chiba- Director, Employee Relations
Laurel Schollen- Co-Dean, Faculty of Technology
Ted Brown- Chair, School of Aviation and
Flight Technology, CFI
Appearing for the Union:
Michael D. Wright- Counsel
Ted Montgomery- President
Larry Olivo- Vice-President
Sean McFarling- Student at Law
John Chandler- Professor, now retired
A hearing in this matter was held in Toronto on February 20,
September 23, December 9, 2002; March 12, May 5 and 8, 2003.
AWARD
The Union has filed a policy grievance under the collective agreement
covering Academic Employees. The Union asserts that the College’s posting of
February 15, 2001 improperly classified the three posted positions of Flight
Instructor in the School of Aviation and Flight Technology. The Union argues that
these positions should have been posted as “Professor” positions instead of
“Instructor” positions under the classification definitions contained in the
collective agreement. The Union requests by way of remedy that the College “…
designate the positions now described as ‘Flight Instructor’ positions as
Professor positions in the academic bargaining unit.” Under the collective
agreement, the position of Professor is paid at a higher rate than that of
Instructor. It also carries greater responsibilities.
The February 15, 2001 posting for three Flight Instructors is set out below:
Seneca College
of Applied Arts & Technology
DATE: February 15, 2001
FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS (3) – SCHOOL OF AVIATION & FLIGHT TECHNOLOGY
will be responsible for carrying out
The Flight Instructors
scheduled preparatory ground instruction, flight instruction
and simulator instruction, evaluating student progress and
consulting with aviation professors regarding student progress
and instructional effectiveness. The Flight Instructors will teach
the specific techniques/practical skills acquisition related to
flying and evaluate student performance within the assigned
courses.
In addition, the Instructors may, from time to time, be
called upon to contribute to other activities ancillary to the provision
of instruction, such as procurement and control of instructional
supplies and maintenance and control of instructional equipment.
The minimum qualifications
are: one year (desirable) experience
as a Flight Instructor, a valid Transport Canada Commercial Pilot
a Class 4 Flight
Licence with Group I Instrument Rating, and
Instructor Rating. A Class III Flight Instructor Rating and 500
hours of flight experience would be desirable.
Candidates must
be familiar with the Transport Canada Private and Commercial Pilot
Licence flight test standards, as well as the Multi-Engine and
Instrument Rating flight test standards. A three year post-secondary
diploma in Aviation and Flight Technology would be desirable.
Excellent communication and human relations skills are requisite to
interact effectively with the College’s multi-cultural/racial/able
student and staff population, as is an understanding of and
commitment to education equity. The ability to convey the practical
applications of aviation subjects to students, respecting their diverse
backgrounds, experience and individual learning styles is
necessary. The Flight Instructors must be able to work
independently and as team players.
Seneca College is committed to employment equity and welcomes
applications from women, racial/ethnic minorities, persons with
disabilities, Aboriginal people, and francophones.
...[empahsis added]
The Board notes that one aspect of the wording of the posting appears to
be at odds with the evidence and the intention of the parties. The posting
stipulates that the “Flight Instructors will be responsible for carrying out
scheduledpreparatory ground instruction, flight instruction and simulator
instruction...” (emphasis added). The uncontested evidence reveals, however,
that the responsibilities of the Flight Instructors extend to the Pre-Flight Briefing,
the In-Flight Instruction and the Post-Flight Debriefing but expressly do not
extend to the Preparatory Ground Instruction. The inclusion of “preparatory
ground instruction” in the posting appears to the Board to have been in error and
not reflective of either the intention of the parties or the duties that have actually
been carried out by the Flight Instructors. Instead, the evidence strongly
suggests that the intention for the posting would have been to refer to the “Pre-
Flight Briefing” instead of the “Preparatory Ground Instruction”. While the
evidence reveals that there are some similarities between these two functions, it
is the Pre-Flight Briefing, not the Preparatory Ground Instruction, that is
performed by the Flight Instructors.
The agreed job classification definitions for the respective “Professor” and
“Instructor” positions are set out below:
CLASSIFICATION DEFINITIONS FOR
POSITIONS IN THE ACADEMIC
BARGAINING UNIT
(to be used in conjunction with the Job Classification
Plans for positions in the Academic Bargaining Unit.)
CLASS DEFINITION
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 learning environment for
students. This includes:
The design/revision/updating of courses
a), 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.
The teaching of assigned courses
b), including:
- ensuring student awareness of course objectives,
approach and evaluation techniques;
- carrying out regularly scheduled instruction;
- tutoring and academic counseling of students;
- providing a learning environment which makes effective
use of available resources, work experience and field
trips;
assuming
- evaluating student progress/achievement and
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 other areas 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.
…
CLASS DEFINITION
INSTRUCTOR
The Instructor classification applies to those teaching
duties and responsibilities of the
positions where the
incumbent are limited to
that portion of the total spectrum of
instruction
academic activities related to the provision of to
through prepared courses of
assigned groups of students
instruction and according to prescribed instructional
formats; and limited to instruction directed to the
acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique; and
under the direction of a Professor.
Notwithstanding such
prescription, the Instructor is responsible for and has the
freedom to provide a learning environment which makes
effective use of the resources provided or identified, work
experience, field trips, etc., and to select suitable learning
materials from those provided or identified to facilitate the
attainment by the students of the educational objectives of
the assigned courses.
The Instructor’s duties and responsibilities include:
- ensuring student awareness of course objectives,
instructional approach, and evaluation systems;
- carrying out regularly scheduled instruction according to
the format prescribed for the course, including as
appropriate, classroom, laboratory, shop, field, seminar,
computer-assisted, individualized learning, and other
instructional techniques;
- tutoring and academic counseling of students in the
assigned groups;
- evaluating student progress/achievement, assuming
responsibility for the overall assessment of the students’
work within the assigned course, and maintaining records
as required; consulting with the Professors responsible for
the courses of instruction on the effectiveness of the
instruction in attaining the stated program objectives.
In addition, the Instructor may, from time to time, be called
upon to contribute to other activities ancillary to the provision
of instruction, such as procurement and control of
instructional supplies and maintenance and control of
instructional equipment.
[emphasis added]
To summarize, Professors are responsible for such areas as designing,
revising, updating and teaching courses, assuming responsibility for the overall
assessment of students’ work in assigned courses, and providing quidance to
Flight Instructors. Flight Instructors, on the other hand, are more limited in their
role. As set out above, three core elements of the “Instructor” Class Definition are
that the Instructors are,
(1) limited to the provision of instruction to assigned groups of students
through prepared courses of instruction and according to prescribed
instructional formats;
(2) limited to instruction directed to the acquisition of a manipulative skill
or technique, and
(3) that they work under the direction of a Professor.
It is these three core elements of the “Instructor” Class Definition that are in
dispute in this arbitration. The Union asserts that work of the Flight Instructors
that were hired under the February 15, 2001 posting does not fall into these
limitations and that, instead, their work is encompassed by the Professor Class
Definition.
Counsel for the Union emphasizes that the three Flight Instructor positions
posted on February 15, 2001, are the first Instructor positions ever used in this
AFT Program at Seneca College. Counsel maintains that the Instructor
classification was always intended by the parties to have a limited and
exceptional use. In such circumstances, counsel argues, the College must prove
its entitlement to rely on the Instructor classification.
Counsel for the Union argues that the Flight Instructors under review do
not fit within the “Instructor” Class Definition in the collective agreement because
they are not limited to “instruction ... through prepared courses of instruction and
according to prescribed instructional formats”, because they are not “limited to
instruction directed to the acqquisition of a manipulative skill or technique” and
because they do not work “under the direction of a Professor.” Counsel maintains
that while a student must learn clearly prescribed matters to learn how to fly and
progress through the AFT Program, the manner in which the Flight Instructor
imparts such knowledge to the student is at the discretion of the Flight Instructor
doing the teaching and is not “prescribed”. Counsel for the Union further argues
that the instruction is not directed to the acquisition of a manipulative skill or
technique because the Flight Instructors also teach theory and judgment as part
of their in-flight lessons. Counsel asserts that while the teaching performed by
the Flight Instructor in these areas does involve the acquisition of manipulative
skills and techniques, it also involves more. Counsel contends that the “more”
includes duties and responsibilities that fall into the Professor classification. In
addition, counsel asserts that the Flight Instructors are not “under the direction of
a Professor” within the meaning of the Class Definition because they do not have
day-to-day contact with a Professor and do not work under a Professor’s day to
day direction.
In contrast, the counsel for the College asserts that the Flight Instructors fit
precisely within the Instructor Class Definition. Counsel maintains that the fact
that there may be some overlap between the work of the Flight Instructors and
Flight Line Professors, with the Flight Line Professors doing some of what the
Flight Instructors do, does not, standing on its own, remove the Flight Instructors
from the Instructor Class Definition. Additionally, counsel for the College
emphasizes that no witness brought by the Union had direct knowledge of what
the Flight Instructors do specifically day to day, since the duties taken on by the
Flight Instructors were not brought within the AFT Diploma Program until after the
Union’s witnesses had left the College. Accordingly, counsel maintains that full
weight must be placed on the undisputed evidence of Mr. Edward Brown. Mr.
Brown is the Chair of Aviation and Flight Technology and the Chief Flight
Instructor (CFI) who, among other duties, supervises all flying activities
conducted by the College. Finally, counsel for the College argues that the burden
of proof rests squarely with the Union to demonstrate that the Flight Instructors
do not fit within the “Instructor” Class Definition and not vice-versa. Counsel
asserts, thereby, that it is not for the College to prove that the Flight Instructors
fall within the Instructor Class Definition but rather for the Union to demonstrate
that they don’t.
By way of background, the following facts emerge without dispute from the
evidence:
1. Seneca College operates the Aviation and Flight Technology Diploma
Program. The AFT Diploma Program consists of eight consecutive
semesters and takes 2.75 years to complete.
2. The purpose of the AFT Diploma Program is to train professional pilots
for the aviation industry in Canada.
3. The first two semesters of the AFT Diploma Program constitute the
Pre-Aviation and Flight Technology segment which is known as the
“ENT Program”. Out of approximately 600 applications, some 145
students are selected each year to enter the ENT Program. During this
portion of the Diploma Program, the students study a variety of
subjects, such as physics, electricity, mathematics, mechanics,
aviation electronics, computers and English. They also take two
aeronautics courses which are aimed at preparing students for
Transport Canada’s written examination for the private pilot licence. No
flying is performed by the students in this ENT portion of the Diploma
Program. The instruction is exclusively carried out in the classroom.
4. At the conclusion of the two-semester ENT portion of the Diploma
Program, and due in part to the rigour of the theoretical studies, the
number of students selected to continue to the next phase is narrowed
considerably. Typically approximately 40 - 45 students will be selected
to enter the Aviation section of the Program where students learn to fly.
The number of students who graduate from this portion of the
Program, the “AFT” Program, is usually between 35 - 40.
5. By graduation, students have a private pilot licence, a Commercial
Pilot Licence, a multi-engine endorsement and an instrument rating. By
graduation, students will have obtained approximately 200 flying hours
and at least 50 hours of simulator time.
6. Graduates of the Aviation and Flight Technology Diploma Program are
typically employed, initially, as flight instructors or in light charter or
bush operations. Graduates also qualify for employment as air crew in
the Canadian Forces. With additional experience, graduates may move
into positions in the scheduled airlines, corporate aviation, airways and
facilities inspectors or as civil aviation inspectors. Some graduates
become air traffic controllers or pursue careers in aviation
management.
7. While the initial two semesters of the AFT Diploma Program, the ENT
Program, consists of classroom studies only, the second portion, the
Aviation and Flight Technology AFT Program, is approximatelly equally
divided between academic courses and in-flight instruction. The
teaching of the academic courses is known as “Ground School”.
8. The flying component of the Program (as opposed to the classroom or
Ground School component) consists of six phases: Phases 1 through 3
are established for ab initio students, i.e. students who are not licensed
and may well never have flown before. Through the completion of
Phase 3, the students acquire their private pilot licences. In Phase 4,
the students spend the majority of their time in solo flying i.e. where
they are not accompanied by flight instructors. In Phase 4 the students
are also exposed to such aspects of flying as advanced aerial
navigation, long range flying and unfamiliar airports. Phases 5 and 6 of
the program mark the culmination of the AFT Program, where the
students acquire their commercial pilot licences and multi-engine
endorsements and instrument ratings.
9. The primary focus of the teaching of the Flight Instructors at issue in
this arbitration falls in Phases 1-3 of the flying component, through
which students gain their private pilot licences. Flight Line Professors,
not Flight Instructors, teach the Lesson Plans in Phases 5 and 6 of the
in-flight instruction program, which leads directly to students gaining
their commercial pilot licences.
10. Of importance to the matter at hand, prior to March of 2001, the
College did not employ persons in the “Instructor” Class Definition for
the Aviation and Flight Technology Diploma Program. Prior to 2001,
the College contracted out the ab initio or private pilot licence training
to a local flight school, Toronto Airways. Prior to 2001, therefore, the
College did not itself do the flight training for students to gain their
private pilot licences.
11. Once the College elected to bring the private pilot training in-house, i.e.
into its AFT Diploma Program, it acquired seven additional aircraft. As
well, on or about February 15, 2001 it posted for 3 Flight Instructors to
teach the newly introduced segment of its Diploma Program, i.e. the ab
initio training for private pilot licences covered in Phases 1-3 of the in-
flight training.
12. Of importance to this matter, it was only when the College decided to
cease contracting out the private pilot training and to bring this
segment of the in-flight instruction into its own AFT Program that it
hired personnel in the Flight Instructor Class Definition. Prior to that, it
had utilized persons in the Professor classifiction only to carry out its
in-flight training
Mr. Edward Brown has been the Chair of Aviation and Flight Technology
and the Chief Flight Instructor (CFI) for Seneca College since March of 2000. He
is responsible for all aspects of the Aviation and Flight Technology Diploma
Program, including both the academic Ground School and all aspects of the flight
training. Because the AFT Program includes in-flight training, it must observe the
regulations of Transport Canada. In this respect, the College is licensed by
Transport Canada to operate as a Flight Training Unit. The evidence reveals that
Transport Canada imposes strict guidelines and limitations on its licence which
permits a school to operate as a Flight Training Unit for the Commercial Pilot
Licence-Areoplane and the Commercial Pilots Licence-Aeroplane/Instrument
Rating integrated Program of pilot training.
Mr. Brown has three groups of people reporting to him: maintainance
engineers who perform all the services and repairs on the aircraft as well as
Flight Instructors and Professors who instruct in the academic courses and /or
provide the required in-flight training.
There are approximately four Professors who teach hard-core academic
subjects in the classroom, such as math, physics, and aerodynamics. There are
also approximately ten Flight Line Professors who teach the professional aviation
subjects in the classroom, such as meteorology, instruments and avionics,
thermodynamics and heat transfer, structures, aircraft systems flight propulsion
systems, automatic flight controls, computer programming automatic flight
controls air carrier proedures, human factors, navigation and numerous others. In
addition, these Flight Line Professors also engage in student in-flight training,
normally at a higher level than the Flight Instructors, i.e. particularly in Phases 5
and 6 of the in-flight training which leads directly to students gaining their
commercial pilot licences.
As of 2001, as noted above, the College hired 3 Flight Instructors to assist
in the in-flight training, primarily for that segment of the in-flight training Program
designed for students to gain their private pilot licences. It is common ground that
the Flight Instructors do not teach in the classroom; they do not teach in the
Ground School.
Mr. Brown testified without dispute that the Flight Instructors are typically
considerably less experienced than the Professors. The typical qualifications of
the Flight Line Professors, as testified to by Mr. Brown, are that they have a
minimum qualification of a Class I or 2 Transport Canada Flight Instructor’s
Rating, a minimum of 1000 hours of flight instruction time, an airline transport
pilot’s licence and at least 300 hours of multi engine time. The typical
qualifications for the Instructors, on the other hand, are that they have the lower
qualification of a Class 3 Flight Instructors Rating and approximately 500 hours of
flight time experience.
The Flight Instructors’ Ratings are established by Transport Canada and
they set out a framework for the qualifications required for flight instructors, i.e.
persons teaching students how to fly. The first three classes of Flight Instructors’
Ratings, as established by Transport Canada, are set out below, with a
descending standard of required performance:
Assessment Standards
Class 1 Aeroplane, Helicopter and Class 1 Aerobatic
x
Learning factors and techniques of instruction are utilized in
a manner that would set an example for a student instructor
x
high degree of student
Teaching method obtains a
involvement
x
Able to readily identify errors in the performance of flight
manoeuvres and suggest a variety of effective strategies for
improvement
x
Technical information presented to the student must be
accurate
x
Demonstrates a very good understanding of training and
testing standards
x
Performance of flight manoeuvres predominantly involves
ideal performance
under existing conditions
x
Demonstrates knowledge and skill necessary to train new
instructors
Class 2 Aeroplane and Helicopter
x
very few minor errors
Presentation may include in the
application of the learning factors and techniques of
instruction
x
good student involvement
Teaching method obtains
x
must be
Technical information presented to the student
accurate
x
Demonstrates knowledge of training and testing standards
appropriate for supervising a staff of instructors
x
Able to readily identify errors in the performance of flight
manoeuvres and suggest effective strategies for
improvement
x
Performance of flight manoeuvres predominantly involves
very few minor errors
Class 3 Aeroplane, Helicopter and Class 2 Aerobatic
x
Presentation may include frequent minor and even some
major errors
in the application of the learning factors and
techniques of instruction, provided that the student would still
be deemed to reach a satisfactory level of understanding
x
some student involvement
Teaching method obtains
x
Presentation may include some minor errors
in the
accuracy of technical
x
Information presented to the student
x
Able to identify common errors in performance of flight
manoeuvres and suggest some strategy for improvement
x
Knowledge of training and testing standards acceptable
x
Performance of flight manoeuvres safely accomplished
but includes frequent minor errors
[emphasis added]
Mr. Brown testified that the major difference between Class 2 and Class 3
Instructors stems from a significant difference in their respective levels of
experience and is reflected in lower expectations and standards for the Class 3
flight instructors. Instructors with Class 2 Flight Instructors’ Ratings are deemed
qualified to exercise a supervisory role over Class 3 and Class 4 flight instructors.
Instuctors with Class 3 Flight Instructors’ Ratings, on the other hand, are not
permitted to supervise Class 4 flight instructors.
Because the issue in this matter concerns whether the duties and
responsibilities of the persons hired as “Flight Instructors” in the February 15,
2001 posting, properly fall into the Class Definition of “Instructor” in the collective
agreement, it is important to look closely at the framework and content of the
portion of the AFT Program that is taught by the 3 Fight Instructors who were
hired into the “Instructor” Class Definition. The undisputed evidence of Mr. Brown
establishes to the satisfaction of the Board that the Flight Instructors in issue
teach three and only three aspects of the student flight training: the “Pre-Flight
Briefing, the In-Flight Instruction and the Post-Flight De-Briefing. They do not
teach in the Ground School or the Preparatory Ground Instruction segment.
Professors, on the other hand, may teach all of these sections.
The Flight Instructor Guide issued by Transport Canada in approximately
February of 2000, carefully defines these various segments of the instruction in
the AFT Diploma Program, as follows:
GROUND SCHOOL TRAINING
Ground School Definition
Classroom type instruction
1., generally to more than
one person, covering items to be taught in the curriculum. This
prepares the student for the written examination, although
instruction may also be extended to cover the air exercises.
2. This is a list of subjects from the appropriate Study
and Reference Guide that the student should have learned or be
familiar with before the Preparatory Ground Instruction is given.
These points should not form part of the Preparatory Ground
Instruction or Pre-flight Briefing.
PREPARATORY GROUND INSTRUCTION
Preparatory Ground Instruction Definition
Classroom type instruction
1., normally on a one-to-
one basis, but not excluding group instruction, covering the steps
While basic theory of flight,
necessary to fly an air exercise.
where applicable, would previously have been covered in
ground school, some theory may be necessary to explain a
point related to the conduct of the air exercise.
Essentially
Preparatory Ground Instruction should cover the “how to do an air
exercise”.
2. This is a presentation given by the instructor when
introducing a new exercise. Ideally it should be given within 24
hours prior to the related training flight.
PRE-FLIGHT BRIEFING
Pre-flight Briefing Definition
Discussion on a one-to-one basis just prior to the
1.
conduct of an air exercise to ensure that the student
understands exactly what will take place. This is essentially a
practical briefing on the Air Instruction
in Part II of this guide,
avoiding theory
but including the important aspects:
(a) What are we going to do;
(b) How are we going to do it; and
(c) Safety Considerations.
This is separate from the ground presentations
2.. It should
precede all flights, whether or not there is a new exercise to be
covered. It is also particularly important when sending a student
solo. Points that should be covered include:
(a) Meteorological and aerodrome conditions, and NOTAM;
(b) The aeroplane to be used, its fuel state and other relevant
information;
(c) Where the exercises will be conducted;
(d) Take-off time, duration of flight and time when the aeroplane
will land back at base;
(e) The sequence of exercises to be covered during the flight;
and,
(f) A review of relevant airmanship points and decision-making
situations expected during the flight.
IN-FLIGHT INSTRUCTION
The in-flight exercise is the culmination of all ground
1.
training and preparation it
. To achieve maximum effectiveness,
must be flown immediately after the pre-flight briefing
, and to
avoid confusion it should be flown as briefed. The following is a
guide to the conduct of a training flight. Variations may be necessary
to suit individual student requirements.
Control of Aircraft
2. There should never be any doubt as to who has control of
the aircraft. The procedure for giving and taking control is:
…
In-Flight Teaching
3. For most new exercises you should first review the main
points of the manoeuvre and then give a perfect demonstration. The
review must be short. Include such items as airspeeds, power
settings, altitudes, etc. Usually you can obtain this information from
your student. Your demonstration should be a complete manoeuvre
and should set the standard you want your student to ultimately
achieve.
4. In the case of a complex manoeuvre, after the perfect
demonstration, demonstrate a small portion of the manoeuvre giving
a brief explanation either before, during or after the demonstration.
Have your student attempt this small portion. Watch closely for any
major error. If you observe a major error, take control immediately
and explain to your student what was done incorrectly, then
demonstrate as soon as possible what to do to correct the error.
Allow practice of that small portion before proceeding to the next
portion. Continue the process of demonstration, explanation and
practice with close supervision of each step or portion, until your
student has completed the entire manoeuvre. Then, allow continued
practice, slowly withdrawing your guidance and assistance.
…
Planning of Flight Instruction
…
9. Time spent going to and from the practice area can be
utilized to full advantage. Suggested items among other things, that
might be included are:
(a) Airspeed changes;
(b) Ground speed checks;
(c) Low level navigation;
(d) VOR, ADF or GPS introduction;
(e) Discussions of traffic pattern joining procedures should wind
change;
(f) Emergency procedures;
(g) D.F. steers;
(h) Map reading;
(i) Estimated times of arrival;
(j) Application of rule of thumb procedures;
(k) Diversions (navigation).
POST-FLIGHT BRIEFING (DEBRIEFING)
Post-flight Briefing (Debriefing) Definition
Review with the student each exercise undertaken
1.
during the flight
. In the case of a dual flight, the debriefing
should include strengths and weaknesses and suggestions
to improve performance. An outline of the next training
session should be given along with study assignments.
This should follow all flights
2., dual and solo. Points should
include:
(a) The student’s own assessment of the flight and performance.
(b) Your assessment of the student’s performance. This should
include both the strong and weak points, and advice on how
to correct any errors.
(c) Answering any questions the student may have.
(d) Assigning study subjects where appropriate.
[emphasis added]
Observations of this Board regarding the GROUND
SCHOOL AND PREPARATORY GROUND INSTRUCTION
–
Segments of the AFT Program Not Taught by “Flight Instructors”:
As noted, the undisputed evidence establishes that persons in the
“Professor” classification, not persons in the “Instructor” classification, teach the
Ground School. Ground School is where academic subjects are taught in a
classroom setting, as discussed above.
In addition, the evidence establishes that persons in the Professor
classification, not persons from the Instructor classification, teach the Preparatory
Ground Instruction. Mr. Brown described the Preparatory Ground Instruction as
that part of the instruction that is given to groups, not one on one, to link theory to
practice. It may be noted that the definition of Preparatory Ground Instruction, set
out above, indicates that it is “classroom type instruction “ and that “some theory
may be necessary to explain a point related to the conduct of the air exercise.”
Similarly, Mr. Brown testified that while in the Preparatory Ground Instruction, the
students generally are not taught new theory, the teaching of some theory is a
regular part of the Preparatory Ground Instruction to explain different points.
Observations of this Board regarding the PRE-FLIGHT
BRIEFING, the IN-FLIGHT INSTRUCTION and the POST-FLIGHT
DEBRIEFING
– Segments of the AFT Program taught by Flight Instructors
and Flight Line Professors:
“Pre-Flight Briefing”
The definition of the , the first segment taught by the
Flights Instructors, stipulates that the teaching of theory at this point is to be
“[avoided]”. Instead, as the definition of the Pre-Flight Briefing set out by
Transport Canada indicates, it is a one-on-one discussion with the student just
prior to the flight to cover exactly what the instructor and student are going to do
in the in-flight exercise, how they are going to do it, and the relevant safety
considerations.
Mr. Brown testified that the College strictly follows this definition of the
Pre-Flight Briefing, i.e. that it consists of a confirmation of the student’s
knowledge, an explanation of what is to be done during the in-flight exercise, how
it is to be done, and any relevant safety factors. Further reflecting the definition of
the Pre-Flight Briefing set by Transport Canada, Mr. Brown emphasized that the
Pre-Flight Briefing does not involve the teaching of theory, unlike what occurs in
Ground School teaching and, to some extent, in the Preparatory Ground
Instruction.
The evidence of Mr. Brown reveals that if the communication between the
Instructor and student in the Pre-Flight Briefing reveals to the instructor that the
student does not have sufficient knowledge to carry out the in-flight exercise, the
instructor does not proceed to teach the theory that the student lacks in order to
prepare him or her for the in-flight exercise. Instead, if during the Pre-Flight
Briefing, the Instructor determines that the student does not have sufficient
knowledge for the in-flight exercise, the Instructor cancels the exercise.
In-Flight Instruction
Respecting the and the nature of the Instructor’s
duties in this segment. Mr. Brown testified that the method of teaching that is
used in-flight is known as the “E.D.I.C.” method. The Instructor “explains” what is
going to happen in the exercise and “demonstrates” the maneuver to the student.
The Instructor then has the student “imitate” what the Instructor has shown him
and, in the end, the Instructor will “critique” the maneuver to help the student
improve his performance for the next time.
Mr. Brown testified that while a student draws on a theory that has been
taught in Ground School while performing an in-flight exercise, the focus of the
in-flight exercise is to enable the student to acquire the skills and techniques
necessary to manoeuvre the aircraft. Mr. Brown stated, by way of example, that
in Ground School, a student will have been exposed to basic aerodynamics and
theory respecting how to control surfaces on the plane. In an in-flight exercise,
however, the student will earn how to manipulate the controls and actually turn
the plane in the air.
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
The Union disputes that the actual work of the 3 Flight Instructors hired in
response to the February 15, 2001 posting matches the three core elements of
the “Instructor” Class Definition in the collective agreement. Accordingly, the
determination of the grievance turns on the resolution of the following three
issues, which reflect the disputed core elements of the Class Definition of
“Instructor”:
(1) Whether the duties and responsibilities of the 3 Instructors are “limited
to ... instruction ... through prepared courses of instruction and
according to prescribed instructional formats”;
(2) Whether their duties and responsibilities are “limited to instruction
directed to the acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique” and
(3) Whether they work “under the direction of a Professor”.
Whether the Duties and Responsibilities of the
(1)
three Instructors are “Limited to ... Instruction ...
through Prepared Courses of Instruction and
According to Prescribed Instructional Formats”:
It is the position of the Union that while the students must learn prescibed
skills set out in the detailed Lesson Plans that are followed in the in-flight
instruction, the matter of how the Instructor imparts that knowledge to the student
in the Pre-Flight, In-Flight and Post-Flight Debriefing is left to the discretion of the
Instructor and is not prescribed. The College does not agree and asserts that the
in the Pre-Flight, In-Fight and Post-Flight Debriefing the Instructors are “limited to
... instruction ... through prepared courses of instruction and according to
prescribed instructional formats”.
The Lesson Plans for the instruction for Phases 1 through 3 of the in-flight
training, the segment of the AFT Diploma Program taught by the Flight
Instructors, are contained in Chapter 2 of the Training Manual, published by the
College under approval by Transport Canada in March 2001. The publication of
the Training Manual coincides with the date when the College brought in-house
the previously contracted out ab initio training for pilots to get their private pilot
licences, the very part of the AFT Diploma Prgram for which the Flight Instructors
under review were hired to instruct.
The Preamble to the Training Manual establishes the framework for the
flight training Lesson Plans that are to be followed by the flight instructors, those
in both the Instructor classification as well as the Professor classification for the
Commercial Pilot Licence-Aeroplane and the Integrated Commercial Pilot
Licence program of pilot training. The Preamble states, in part:
This manual contains the training plan of Seneca College, the Flight
Syllabus, and Ground School Syllabus for the Integrated Commercial Pilot
Program.
All flight training conducted for the completion of the Integrated
Commercial Pilot Program shall be in accordance with this manual .
The Approval Page for the Training Manual, where signed approval is given by
both Transport Canada and the College, stipulates that the consequence of
deviation from the requirements set out in the Manual could lead to the
suspension of the College’s Flight Training Operator Certificate, as follows:
Non-compliance with the approved procedures and controls could lead to
the suspension of the applicable Flight Training Operator Certificate.
The Lesson Plans that are set out in the Training Manual that are to be
followed by the Flight Instructors for their in-flight training of students are not only
mandatory but also precisely detailed. Consistent with the stipulations in the
Preamble and Approval Page of the Training Manual, as set out above, the
uncontradicted evidence of Mr. Brown indicates that the Flight Instructors are not
permitted to alter any part of the Lesson Plans they teach.
Chapter 2 of the Training Manual, the ICPP Flight Training Syllabus for
Phases 1 through 3 of the flight training, culminates in the students taking the
test for their private pilot licences. This is the segment of the in-flight training
which the Flight Instructors in issue were hired to teach. The introductory
paragraphs to Chapter 2, paragraph 5, set out a detailed description of the
framework for each phase of the Integrated Commercial Pilot Program flight
training program, as including,
1) trainee objectives for each lesson;
2) time requirements for each lesson;
3) instructional methods to be used for each lesson; and
4) completion standards for each lesson.
Chapter 2.1, for Phase 1, sets out some 14 detailed Lesson Plans which
are taught by the Flight Instructors and cover such topics as,
1) Aircraft Familiarization (Dual);
2) Taxiing & Attitude and Movements (Dual);
3) Flying Fundamentals – Straight and Level Flight (Dual);
4) Flying Fundamentals – Climbs and Descents (Dual);
5) Flying Fundamentals – Turns (Dual);
6) Airwork– Flight Range and Endurance (Dual);
7) Airwork– Slow Flight (Dual);
8) Airwork– Stalls and Spins (Dual);
9) Airwork– Spiral Dives, Steep Turns, Slipping (Dual);
10) Airport Procedures – The Circuit (Dual);
11) Airport Procedures – The Circuit and Overshoots (Dual );
12) Airport Procedures – The Circuit and Engine Failures (Dual);
13) Airport Procedures – The Circuit (Dual);
14) Emergency Procedure Review (Dual).
Virtually all of these Lesson Plans follow the same format:
1) Flight Time
2) Topics
3) Objectives
4) References
5) Required Instruction During Flight under such specified
subheadings as,
a) what the instructor should assist the trainee with;
b) what the instructor should review with the trainee;
c) what the instructor should demonstrate for the trainee;
and
d) what the trainee should be allowed to practice.
6) Trainee Completion Standards.
The evidence is clear that the Lesson Plans must be followed exactly by
the Flight Instructors for the in-flight training. They clearly are “prepared courses
of instruction”.They clearly are “prescribed instructional formats” which the
Instructors are required to follow. Each Lesson Plan has a format, content and
standards that cannot be altered by the Instructor.
By way of example, and just at random, Lesson Plan #5 – Flying
Fundamentals– Turns (Dual), details, in part, the following elements that are to
be covered and followed by the Flight Instructor during the in-flight Lesson:
2.1.2.5 Lesson Plan # 5 – Flying Fundamentals – Turns (Dual)
...
5) Required Instruction During Flight
a) The instructor should assist the trainee with:
i) aircraft pre-flight inspection (if required)
ii) normal operating procedures (as per the checklist)
iii) aircraft taxiing (if required)
iv) normal take-off procedures
b) The instructor should review with the trainee:
i) straight and level flight at varying airspeeds
ii) normal climb procedures
iii) normal descent procedures
c) The instructor should demonstrate for the trainee:
i) gentle turns
ii) medium turns
iii) flight for range and endurance
iv) normal approach and landing procedures
d) The trainee should be allowed to practice:
i) gentle turns
ii) medium turns
iii) climbing and descending turns
6) Trainee Completion Standards
a) The trainee should be able to execute a gentle or medium
turn while maintaining:
Angle of Bank:+ 10°
Altitude:+ 150’
Airspeed:+ 10 KIAS
b) The trainee should be able to roll the aircraft out on a pre-
selected geographical heading or specific magnetic
heading within + 15°.
By way of further example, part of the Lesson Plan #8 – Airwork – Stalls
(Dual), indicates the following format and standards to by followed by the
Instructor as part of the required instruction during the flight:
Lesson Plan #8 – Airwork – Stalls (Dual)
…
5) Required Instruction During Flight
a) The instructor should review with the trainee:
i) normal climb procedures
ii) normal descent procedures
iii) gentle turns
iv) medium turns
v) climbing and descending turns
vi) slow flight entry and recovery procedures
b) The instructor should demonstrate for the trainee:
i) power-off stall entries and recoveries (with and
without flap)
ii) power-on stall recoveries (with and without flap)
iii) spins
c) The trainee should be allowed to practice:
i) aircraft starting procedure, taxiing, take-off
ii) straight and level flight
iii) climbs and descents
iv) gentle turns
v) medium turns
vi) climbing and descending turns
vii) slow flight entry and recovery procedures
viii) stalls
ix) normal approach and landing
6) Trainee Completion Standards
a) The trainee should be able to recognize an approaching
or actual stall.
b) The trainee should be able to enter and recover from a
stall using the correct procedures.
c) The trainee should be able to maintain:
Heading:+ 20°
Altitude+ 300’
Approximately 19 Lesson Plans for Phase 2 are set out in the Training
Manual in similar detail and format. Following that, for Phase 3, some additional
10 detailed Lesson Plans are similarly set down with equally prescribed formats.
Lesson 10 culminates in the Private Pilot Flight Test (Solo).
In addition to the Training Manual, which both students and instructors
have, there is a Flight Instructors’ Guide which is also approved by Transport
Canada. The Flight Instructors’ Guide is a reference that is used by Instructors or
Professors for the in-fight training; The Guide, for example, contains notes for the
flight instructors that go along with the topics covered in the Lesson Plans.
Moreover, the Guide sets out the framework for the pattern that is followed for
the in-flight teaching, known, according to Mr. Brown, as “EDIC”: explain,
demonstrate, imitate and critique. Similarly, the Flight Instructors’ Guide sets out
the method of teaching at p. 20, as follows:
(1) explanation;
(2) demonstration;
(3) student performance;
(4) instructor supervision; and
(5) evaluation.
The Board is unable to accept the assertion of the Union that while the
students must learn the prescibed skills set out in the detailed Lesson Plans, the
matter of how the Instructor imparts that knowledge to the student in the Pre-
Flight, In-Fight and Post-Flight Debriefing is not prescribed and is left to the
discretion of the Instructor. The evidence of Mr. Brown coupled with the
requirements of the Training Manual readily establishes that the instruction given
by the Instructors through Phases 1 through 4 of the in-flight training is “limited to
... instruction ... through prepared courses of instruction and according to
prescribed instructional formats”, The Instructors do not develop the curriculum;
nor do not modify or change it. Under pain of the possiblity that the College’s
certificate to carry out the Program could be suspended, the Instructors are
required to follow the Lesson Plans set out in the Training Manual. The
framework and detail of the stipulated Lesson Plans leaves insufficient room for
the Instructor to go beyond “prepared courses of instruction and according to
prescribed instructional formats” within the meaning of the Class Definition of
Instructor in the collective agreement.
2. Whether the Duties and Responsibilities of the
Instructors are “limited to Instruction Directed to the
Acquisition of a Manipulative Skill or Technique”:
It is to be noted that the posting which sets out the responsibilities for the
Flight Instructors in issue stipulates that the “Flight Instructors will teach the
specific techniques/practical skills acquisition related to flying...”.The posting
makes no mention of the Flight Instructors teaching theory or other foundations
of flying that go beyond “instruction directed to the acquisition of a manipulative
skill or technique...”, as referred to by way of limitation in the Class Definition of
Instructor.
The Instructors do not instruct in the Ground School or in the Preparatory
Ground Instruction segment where, the evidence reveals, theory is taught. The
Instructors were hired to perform that aspect of the program that previously had
been contracted out: the Pre-Flight Briefing, the In-Flight Instruction and the
Post- Flight De-Briefing for that portion of the AFT Diploma Program in which the
ab initio students gain their private pilot licences, particularly Phases 1 through 3
of the 6 phases of the in-flight program, albeit some instruction may be done in
Phase 4.
The Union maintains that the College must persuade the Board of
Arbitration that the Instructors are teaching devoid of theory, judgment, attitudes
and planning abilities, and that none of this enters into their instruction. The
Union asserts that the teaching of attitude, judgment, good decision-making and
other human factors is part of the teaching of flying at the ab initio stage as well
and establishes that their work, therefore, falls outside the limitations contained in
the Instructor Class Definition. It is the position of the Union that the actual
manipulative skills constitute only a small part of what the pilot is taught and must
understand. In its reply argument, the Union emphasized that what it is saying
about the teaching of theory by Instructors is that while the Instructors do not
teach theory in the first instance, they reinforce theory in that their instruction
ensures that students understand the theoretical background and they further
incorporate theory into a variety of the issues that they are teaching the students
in the air.
For the Flight Instructors in issue to fall within the definition of “Instructor”
in the Class Definition set out in the collective agreement, it is not necessary to
establish that absolutely no mention of theory, judgment or human factors is ever
made by the flight Instructors in their teaching. The wording of the Class
Definition of “Instuctor” in the collective agreement is that the teaching is limited
to instruction “directed to” the acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique. It
does not say something like, “instruction exclusively covering only ...”
Mr. John Richard Chandler gave evidence on behalf of the Union. Mr.
Chandler worked as a Professor in Seneca’s Aviation and Flight Technology
Diploma Program from 1989 to 2001. He officially retired effective October 30,
2001 but stopped working at Seneca in the spring of 2001 as he took vacation
time from then until his retirement date. While Mr. Chandler was at Seneca, he
spent much of his time as a Professor engaged in classroom teaching and flight
line instruction, where he would conduct various flight training exercises with
students. The Union relies on Mr. Chandler’s evidence wherein he stated that
while theory is discussed in the classroom, it is really taught in the air.
Having carefully reviewed the evidence, the Board is satisfied that while
Mr. Chandler’s evidence may accurately reflect the situation in the AFT Program
while he was there, it is does not assist in the determination of whether the 3
Flight Instructors hired in the spring of 2001 fall within the Instructor classification
in the collective agreement. The significant change in the AFT Diploma Program
that occurred in May of 2001, whereby the College decided to bring in-house the
private pilot training that, theretofore, it had contracted out to Toronto Airways,
took place just as Mr. Chandler was retiring.
Mr. Chandler readily acknowledged that prior to May of 2001, the College
did not have as part of its AFT Program the ab initio private pilot training for
students to gain their private pilot licences. Because Mr. Chandler left Seneca in
the spring of 2001, he was not part of the AFT Program once the Flight
Instructors had taken on their duties. While Mr. Chandler was working in the
Program, Flight Instructors were not part of the teaching staff. He acknowledged
that he has no direct experience with or knowledge of what the Flight Instructors
hired by Seneca in the spring of 2001 actually do in instructing students for their
private pilot licences, i.e. in the Pre-Flight Briefings, In-Flight exercises and Post-
Flight Debriefings. He never worked with them at Seneca. Accordingly, Mr.
Chandler acknowledged that he is not familiar with how the Pre-Flight Briefing,
In-Flight Instruction and Post-Flight Debriefing duties are performed by the
Instuctors at the College because such duties were not performed within Seneca
prior to May of 2001. Mr. Chandler further confirmed that the Training Manual,
which directs Flight Instructors as to what lessons are to be taught and how, was
not in effect when he was teaching at Seneca College. The Training Manual,
which was approved by Transport Canada, came into effect on or about March 1,
2001, when the Mr. Chandler was leaving the AFT Program.
Accordingly, Mr. Chandler’s evidence about what the Flight Instructors in
issue teach and the extent to which they may or may not teach theory in the in-
flight exercises is conjecture only and does not assist the Board.
Captain Steven Linthwait graduated from Seneca College’s Aviation and
Flight Technology School in 1985. When he was at Seneca, Toronto Airways, not
Seneca, performed the ab initio flight training to enable students to gain their
private pilot licences. He is a very experienced pilot and testified to the situation
when he was a student at the College. Once again, the Board must conclude that
his evidence is of limited value in determing the appropriate Class Definition for
the 3 Flight Instructors hired in response to the February 15, 2001 posting. While
Captain Linthwait is a very experienced pilot, he has not been involved in ab initio
pilot instruction at Seneca and has no familiarity with the current framework
established by the College, under the approval of Transport Canada, for the
teaching of ab initio pilots to enable them to gain their private pilot licences. Nor
does he have a Flight Instructor’s rating from Transport Canada and thus has not
engaged in teaching of this nature. He has never taught someone to fly who has
never flown before.
Captain Robert James Fenn is currently a Captain with Air Canada. He
holds a Class 1 Instructors’ Rating and has considerable experience teaching ab
initio students, i.e. students who are not licenced and may have never flown
before. It is this level of instruction that the Flight Instructors in issue perform for
the College Seneca. Captain Fenn, however, has no personal knowledge of the 3
Flight Instructors who were hired or what they do precisely.
Captain Fenn gave some general evidence, however, drawing on his
experience as a Class I Instructor who has considerable experience teaching ab
initio students. Captain Fenn stated that flight instructors never teach theory in
the cockpit. He commented that because airplanes are very expensive,
instructors do not want to take time in the aircraft to teach theory. He said that
students learn the basic theory before they get into the aircraft, such that once in
the aircraft, the instructor and student focus on how to fly: e.g. how to taxi, how to
speed up, how to slow down, how to turn, how to dive, i.e. how to manipulate the
controls to achieve these manoeuvres. Consistent with the evidence of Mr.
Brown, he stated that instructors do not teach theory in the pre-flight briefing
either. He said that, instead, what instructors cover is “where”, “what” and “how”
the instructor and student are about to do the exercise, and “who” is going to do
what. Captain Fenn stated that in the in-flight training, the instructor
demonstrates how the theory works physically and explains it. In the in-flight
exercise, the student is able to tie the physical aircraft movements with the theory
that he or she learned earlier. The instructor demonstrates and the student
imitates. He stated that they practice the maneuver or skill until the student is
confident.
Captain Fenn testified that instructors with Class 3 and 4 Instructor
Ratings typically do the ab initio training. He stated that using Class 1 or 2
Instructors to do the ab initio training would not be a good use of resources and
would take away the opportunity for Class 3’s and 4’s to gain experience to reach
the higher levels. Captain Fenn noted that prior to 2001, there was no need for
Seneca College to have junior instructors because it contracted out its ab initio
training.
In the Flight Instructors’ Guide, the description of the Pre-Flight Briefing
expressly stipulates that it is “… essentially a practical briefing on the Air
Instruction in Part II of this guide, avoiding theory but including the important
aspects: (a) What are we going to do; (b) How are we going to do it; and, (c)
Safety Considerations.” Consistent with this description, Captain Fenn, as well as
Mr. Brown, stated that theory is not covered in the Pre-Flight Briefing.
Mr. Brown agreed with Mr. Chandler that flying is complex and demanding
and that it requires a high level of skill and judgment. While engaged in the In-
Flight Lessons, the students and Instructors are not operating in a vacuum
devoid of theory and judgment. The theory that has been taught by the
Professors in Ground School and Preparatory Ground Instruction becomes part
of the student’s knowledge and experience and brings the student to a level that
enables the student to successfully engage in the in-flight Lessons Plans. In the
description of the In-Flight Instruction set out in the Flight Instructors’ Guide, it
states that, “The in-flight exercise is the culmination of all ground training and
preparation.”
Notwithstanding, the importance of an understanding of theory and good
judgment in creating the foundation necessary to successfully complete the AFT
Diploma Program, the fact remains that the clear and primary focus and
“direction” of the Pre-Flight Briefing, the In-Flight Instruction and the Post-Flight
Debriefing is to teach students through carefully structured Lesson Plans set
down in the Training Manual how to manoeuver the aircraft and how to gain the
skills and techniques necessary to manipulate the aircraft in accordance with the
required standards. It is undiputed that flight time in an aircraft is expensive. The
evidence reveals that the Lesson Plans are structured so that the time spent in-
flight is efficiently designed and focused on “how to” as opposed to “why”.
Accordingly, while the comprehension of theory taught in Ground School
and Preparatory Ground Instruction may be a necessary backdrop to the
successful completion of the in-flight training, the evidence establishes that the
duties and responsibilities of the Flight Instructors, which involve instruction in the
Pre-Flight, In-Flight, and Post-Flight Debriefing segments of the AFT Program
are fully “directed to the acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique” within the
Class Definition of “Instructor” in the collective agreement.
3. Whether the Instuctors “Work under the Direction
of a Professor”:
The Union emphasizes that two of the Flight Instructors hired through the
posting previously worked in a partial load capacity in the Professor
classification, including Duty Professor, in the flight training Program at Seneca.
The Union stresses that at that point, they had less experience and the same
Class 3 Instructor Rating that is expressed as “desirable” in the posting for the
Flight Instructor.
The Board is satisfied that how the persons hired as Flight Instructors
through the February 15, 2001 posting may have been previously utilized by the
College is of mimimal significance. The key matter is whether their current duties
and responsibilities fit within the “Instructor” Class Definition agreed to by the
parties in their collective agreement. As fully set out above, the AFT Diploma
Program fundamentally changed in the spring of 2001 and it was in response to
that change that the College developed its need to hire 3 Flight Instructors to
perform the ab initio training required for the students to get their private pilot
licences. Prior to that, the College had contracted out the very portion of the
Program that the Flight Instructors have now been hired to teach. The issue in
dispute is not resolved by looking at what might have been done when the
Program was fundamentally different. Rather, the determination of the status of
the Flight Instructors necessitates looking at whether their current positions as
Flight Instructors properly fit within the Class Definition of “Instructor” agreed to
by the parties under the collective agreement.
In arguing that the Instructors do not work “under the direction of a
Professor”, within the meaning of the Class Definition of Instructor, the Union
emphasizes that Flight Instructors do not need to have their Lesson Plans
reviewed by Professors before they are taught. Moreover, the Union asserts that
Instructors are not monitored or supervised any differently than Professors.
The Flight Training Operations Manual, which was approved and
mandated by Transport Canada in March of 2001, when the ab initio flight
training was brought in-house by the College, expressly stipulates in section
1.3.8.2 that “Flight Instructors”, the group encompassing the 3 Flight Instructors
hired as Instructors through the disputed posting, are “responsible to the
Assistant Chief Flight Instructor for the safe conduct of flight training.” It is
undisputed that the Assistant Chief Flight Instructor is a Professor in the
bargining unit. As stated by Mr. Brown, the Assistant Chief Flight Instructor
cannot be someone in the “Instructor” Class Definition. In contrast, section
1.3.9.2 stipulates that a Flight Professor is “responsible to the Chief Flight
Instructor for the safe conduct of flight training ...” As set out in the Flight Training
Operations Manual, The Chief Flight Instructor has direct supervision over all
flying activities conducted by the College, among other matters, and is normally
also the Chair of Aviation and Flight Technology, i.e. the head of the entire AFT
Diploma Program.
The primary task of the Assistant Chief Flight Instructor, to whom the
Flight Instructors are responsible, is the day-to-day scheduling and monitoring of
student progress. Mr. Brown testified that the Assistant Chief Flight Instructor
assesses where the students are in the overall program and develops a weekly
schedule that will most effectively utilize the faculty and the airplanes in the best
interest of the students. In this manner, the students are then assigned flight
exercises. The Assistant Chief Flight Instructor further assigns the students to the
specific Flight Instructors for their specified flight exercises.
The evidence further reveals that the Instructors also take direction from
Duty Professors, where required. The uncontradicted evidence establishes that
Duty Professors are in the Professor classification. Mr. Brown testified that the
duty Professor cannot be someone in the Instructor classification. The primary
responsibility of the Duty Professor is to directly supervise, as delegated, the
conduct of the flight training program on a particular day.
The undisputed evidence of Mr. Brown indicates that the Instructors
cannot make changes in the in-flight exercises or Lesson Plans that they have
been assigned to teach a student. While no one except Transport Canada may
change the content of a Lesson Plan, circumstances may arise when one Lesson
Plan has to to be substituted for another. Inclement weather, for example, might
render the teaching of a particular Lesson Plan inappropriate or unsafe. An
Instructor does not have the authority to substitute one Lesson Plan for another.
Such alterations must be authorized for the Instructor by the Duty Professor.
The evidence establishes that Instructors do not do curriculum
development, do not teach classroom courses, do not sit on committees, do not
make promotion decisions and do not evaluate the students’ training needs, all of
which duties and responsibilities are carried out by Professors. Nor do the
instructors determine what a student needs to learn beyond what is contained in
the particular Lesson Plans he or she has been assigned to teach. This
responsibility is performed by the Professor classification, typically the Assistant
Chief Flight Instructor.
Respecting the evaluation of students, Instructors attend promotion and
staff meetings, along with Professors.The functional input of the Instructors in the
evaluation of students is limited to the assessment of the student’s’ performance
in each particular Lesson Plan taught by the Instructor. As set out above, each
Lesson Plan has very specific learning expectations and outcomes guidelines. If
the Instructor finds that a student does not meet the required standard for a given
Lesson Plan, the Instructor would rate the student’s performance for that Lesson
Plan as “unsatisfactory” and seek the guidance and advice of the Assistant Chief
Flight Instructor. It is the Assistant Chief Flight Instructor, not the Instructor, who
would determine what remedial action should be taken by the College. The
evidence reveals that the remedial action would not involve the Instructor unless
it reached the point of the Progress Review Board.
The task of the Progress Review Board, which is comprised of three
Professors, is to evaluate the input from the Instructor or Professor with whom
the student had been flying, to review the student’s overall progress through the
course and to interview the student. Based on that input, the Progress Review
Board will then recommend either removal from the program or additional flight
training.
The Instructor’s role in the Progress Review Boardis one of providing
information only, as opposed to evaluating or determining the student’s status in
the Program. The Instructor will provide the Progress Review Board with
information relating to the specific training procedure or procedures that brought
on the student’s negative evaluation. In contrast, the Professor has a more
expansive role in the evaluation of a student’s status and may well become a
member of the Progress Review Board.
CONCLUSION:
Save for the error in the wording of the February 15, 2001 posting for the 3
Flight Instructors in issue, which, as set out above, we concluded mistakenly
included “preparatory ground instruction”, instead of “pre-flight briefings”, as part
of the responsibilities of the Flight Instructors, the posted position description for
the Flight Instructors is fully consistent with the Class Definition of “Instructor”
under the collective agreement.
Referring to the description in the posting, as corrected, the Board is
satisfied that the Flight Instructors are “responsible for carrying out scheduled
[pre-flight briefings], flight instruction and simulator instruction”. They are further
“responsible ... for evaluating student progress and instructional effectiveness” in
the areas in which they instruct, particularly in the Lesson Plans they teach as set
out in the Training Manual, as fully discussed above. Moreover, they further
“[consult] with aviation professors regarding student progress and instructional
effectiveness.” In addition, the “Flight Instructors [do] teach the specific
techniques/practical skills acquisition related to flying and evaluate student
performance within the assigned courses.” As well, respecting qualifications, the
Flight Instructors hired under the posting have the qualifications referred to as
being “desirable”, i.e. a Class 3 Flight Instructors’ Rating and 500 hours of flight
experience, if not the minimum Class 4 Flight Instructors’ Rating.
The evidence accepted by this Board as probative in this matter, as fully
discussed above, does not suggest or establish that the duties and
responsibilities of the Flight Instructors hired under the posting go beyond the
stated responsibilities on the posting. Moreover, and of primary significance, the
duties set out in the posting are fully consistent with the Class Definition of
“Instructor” in the collective agreement, and not that of “Professor”.
Moreover, having carefully reviewed the evidence and for the reasons set
out above, the Board is further satisfied that the duties and responsibilities
Instructors who were hired by the College in response to the posting dated
February 15, 2001, fall directly within the Class Definition of “Instructor” in the
collective agreement. The evidence of Mr. Brown and the stipulations and
requirements in both the Training Manual and the Flight Training Operations
Manual approved by Transport Canada indicate that “the duties and
responsibilities of the [Instructors] are limited to that portion of the total spectrum
of academic activities related to the provision of instruction to assigned groups of
students through prepared courses of instruction and according to prescribed
instructional formats; and limited to instruction directed to the acquisition of a
manipulative skill or technique; and under the direction of a Professor ”, within
the meaning of the Class Definition of “Instructor” in the collective agreement.
In the result, for the reasons set out above, the Board concludes that the
persons hired as Flight Instructors in the posting dated February 15, 2001, are
properly classified under the collective agreement as “Instructors”.
Accordingly, the grievance is, hereby, dismissed.
th
DATED at TORONTO this 16 day of April, 2004.
__________________________________
Pamela Cooper Picher, Chairperson
s.c
I concur. “Michael Riddell”
__________________________________
College Nominee
I dissent for reasons “Pamela Munt-Madill”
set out below.__________________________________
Union Nominee