Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO'Brien 98-04-03 IN THE MA'II'ER OF AN ARBITRATION FANSHAWE COLLEGE - and - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICES EMPLOYEES UNION GRIEVANCE OF O'BRIEN BOARD OF ARBITRATION: JANE H. DEVLIN CHAIR PETER HETZ COLLEGE NOMINEE JON MCMANUS UNION NOMINEE ROBERT J. ATKINSON, FOR THE COLLEGE RICHARD a. BLAIR, FOR THE UNION OPSEU NO.' 97A106 HEARING DATES: JUNE 23 & DECEMBER 8, 1997 The grievance, which was filed by Karen O'Brien, involves a claim that she was improperly classified as a partial-load Instructor when assigned to teach a nursing practice course in the fall of 1996. It is the position of the Union that the Grievor ought to have been classified as a Professor. The class definitions for Professor and Instructor are set out in the collective agreement as follows: 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: a) The design/revision/updating of courses, including: - consulting with program and course directors and other faculty members, advisory committees accrediting agencies, potential employers and students; - defining course objectives and evaluating and validating these objectives; - specifying or approving learning approaches, necessary resources, 'etc.; - developing individualized instruction and multi-media presentations where applicable; selecting or approving textbooks and learning materials. b) The teaching of assigned courses, including: - ensuring student awareness of course objectives, approach and evaluation techniques; - carrying out regularly scheduled instruction; - tutoring and academic counselling of students; - providing a learning environment which makes effective use of available resources, work experience and field trips; - evaluating student progress/achievement and assuming responsibility for the overall assessment of the student's work within assigned courses. c) The provision of academic leadership, including: - providing guidance to Instructors relative to the 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 positions where the duties and responsibilities of the incumbent are limited to that portion of the total spectrum of academic activities related to the provision of instruction to assigned groups of students through prepared courses of instruction and according to prescribed instructional formats; and limited to instruction directed to the acquisition of a 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 counselling of students in the assigned groups; - evaluating student progress/achievement, assuming responsibility for the overall assessment of the students' work within the assigned course, and maintaining records as required; consulting with the 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. The evidence indicates that two nursing programs are offered within the Health Sciences Division of the College. Of relevance to this case is the six- semester diploma nursing program, the graduates of which are eligible to write an 4 examination to qualify as Registered Nurses. The program consists of a combination of theory courses which are taught in a classroom setting; laboratory courses in which students are taught practical skills such as taking blood pressure, dispensing medication and bed making; and clinical courses in which students have the opportunity to apply the skills learned in theory and laboratory courses in a health care facility. Prior to the fall of 1996, instruction in all three components of the program was provided by Professors. Among the courses offered in the first semester of the nursing program are Nursing 121, a nursing theory course, and Nursing 179, a clinical course in nursing practice. The descriptions and learning outcomes for these courses are set out on course information sheets as follows: NURS121 - NURSING THEORY Course Description: This course introduces the concept of wellness and basic human needs, and some minor interferences. Emphasis is placed on the knowledge and skills necessary to apply the nursing process in the care of clients of all age groups. Learning Outcomes: At completion of this course, the student will be able to: (I) demonstrate beginning ability of client assessment and the identification of client strengths, and some problems; (ii) demonstrate beginning ability to plan and implement nursing care. NRSG179 - NURSING PRACTICE Course Description: In this course the student applies the knowledge gained in NRSG176 and NURS121 in the clinical setting (hospital and community agencies). The student begins to identify the health needs of clients, as emphasis is placed on the assessment of needs, preventative care, and promotion of health. Learning Outcomes: At completion of this course, the student will be able to: apply beginning nursing skills in clinical setting while giving care to clients of all ages. The course information sheet for Nursing 179 also indicates that for purposes of evaluation, students are required to complete two data collection assignments; one nursing care plan; weekly journals; weekly research of clinical assignments; and one process recording. In addition to the course information sheet for Nursing 179, there is a document entitled "Guideline Objectives" which contains a series of modules setting out the objectives to be achieved during the course which extends over 12 weeks and generally involves six hours, two days a week. The document covers subjects such as the nursing process, patient needs, communication and nursing techniques. There are also a number of appendices to the document dealing with matters such as guidelines for journalling, nursing diagnosis definitions and nursing care plans. The evidence indicates that course information sheets are prepared and revised by Professors assigned to teach the particular course who are required to ensure that the curriculum is developed and updated. The Guideline Objectives document for Nursing 179 was prepared by Professors assigned to teach the course in conjunction with the curriculum committee and the Co- ordinator of the nursing program. During the relevant period, the Co-ordinator was Judy Weed. The Grievor, Karen O'Brien, is a Registered Nurse who graduated with a nursing diploma from Sheridan College in 1977. She obtained her B.Sc.N. in 1988 and her M.Sc.N. in 1993. Prior to joining the faculty of Fanshawe College in 1990, she worked in various clinical settings and taught in the nursing program at Laurentian University for one year. Subsequent to 1990, the Grievor was classified as a full-time Professor and taught primarily in the laboratory and clinical components of the nursing program. In the spring of 1996, following the expiry of a "no layoff agreement" between the parties, which was in effect from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1996, the Grievor was issued a notice of layoff. She was subsequently laid off in the summer of 1996. ? In mid-August 1996, the Grievor was offered a position as a partial- load Instructor to teach the clinical course in either the first or fourth semester of the nursing program. She elected to teach Nursing 179, the first semester clinical course. As to the circumstances under which this offer was made, it was the evidence of Patricia Kirkby, Chair of the Health Sciences Division, that during the summer of 1996, it became apparent that in view of increased enrolment, additional instruction would be required in the clinical component of the program. Ms. Kirkby also testified that for a number of years, consideration had been given to assigning Instructors, rather than Professors, to this component and although she suggested that this matter was the subject of extensive consultation, she acknowledged that it was not discussed with the Union. In any event, at some point in the summer of 1996, a decision was made to offer the Grievor, among others, a position as a partial-load Instructor to teach a course in the clinical component of the program. In late August, the Grievor and other Instructors attended an orientation session which was conducted by Ms. Weed. At that time, the Grievor was provided with a number of documents, including the Guideline Objectives document and draft job descriptions for both Professor and Practice Instructor. The College indicated that to date, these job descriptions have not been finalized. As indicated previously, the Grievor elected to teach Nursing 179 in the fall of 1996 and the evidence indicates that she had previously taught this course on one occasion when classified as a Professor. In both instances, the course was conducted at St. Mary's Hospital, a long term care facility. At this facility, one Registered Nurse is assigned to two floors and much of the day-to- day care is provided by Registered Practical Nurses and Patient Care Partners who assist residents with activities such as bathing, dressing and eating. The Grievor testified that when she taught Nursing 179 as a Professor, there were approximately nine to ten students in the course and she initially assigned each student to care for a resident on one of two floors of the Hospital. The Grievor was often the only Registered Nurse on these floors and had a professional responsibility with respect to the care provided. The Grievor also reviewed and modified the assignment of students to residents on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, taking into account the ability of the student and the needs of the resident. In the final weeks of the course, most students were assigned to care for two residents. When classified as a Professor, the Grievor met with each student once a week to the discuss the health care needs of the resident or residents to whom the student was assigned, the student's plan to address those needs and 9 any concerns or questions raised by the student. In addition, the Grievor conducted a one hour conference with all students daily. The Grievor testified that either during these conferences or in discussion with individual students, she ensured that the care provided was appropriate and for this purpose, assisted students with problem-solving and critical thinking. She testified that there was also a discussion of issues such as the relationship between theory and practical skills; the appropriateness of the care provided by staff at the Hospital; the nature of the care required by residents; and the role of other health care professionals. The Grievor also testified that in the clinical course, students were given an opportunity to apply skills learned in both the theory and laboratory courses. She explained, however, that in carrying out procedures at the Hospital, students had to be cognizant of the response of the individual resident. She also explained that in the first semester, the focus was on wellness and that emphasis was placed on communication both with residents and staff members at the Hospital. Students were taught to recognize and negotiate residents' rights. Moreover, students interacted with members of other health disciplines and, by this process, were "socialized" into the nursing profession. As to the evaluation of students, the Grievor testified that when classified as a Professor, she assessed the students' ability to meet the ]0 requirements of the Guideline Objectives document based upon her observations of students and the written documentation submitted by the students which included a nursing care plan in which students were required to apply the nursing process involving assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation. In addition, students were required to submit a process recording and maintain a journal outlining their interactions with residents and the appropriateness of their response to situations which arose in the clinical setting. When classified as a Professor, the Grievor testified that she reported to the Co-ordinator although she did not do so on a regular basis, nor was there supervision of her work at the Hospital. The Grievor, however, kept the Co-ordinator apprised of the students' progress in the clinical course and, from time to time, discussed concerns with regard to particular students. As a Professor, the Grievor attended Divisional meetings which were held monthly and involved all Professors in the nursing program. As well, she attended level meetings which were held either monthly or bi-monthly and involved Professors teaching in a particular year of the program. Moreover, in some, although not in all, semesters, the Grievor participated on committees, such as the curriculum committee, the progress committee, the development committee and the marketing and recruitment committee. When classified as a Professor, the Grievor's standard workload form ("SWF") included time for assigning students to residents and travelling to the Hospital. The Grievor testified that when assigned to Nursing 179 in the fall of 1996, there was no difference in her teaching duties when compared with those she had performed as a Professor. In particular, she testified that in the fall of 1996, she was responsible for assigning students to residents; for providing instruction and guidance to students and; for ensuring that the course objectives were met. She also testified that she had essentially the same relationship with the Co-ordinator as she had when classified as a Professor and that as she recalled, she spoke with Ms. Weed on only one occasion in the fall of 1996 in connection with the progress of students in the clinical course. As an Instructor, however, the Grievor was not required to attend Divisional or level meetings, nor did she participate in committee work. She also acknowledged that apart from updating her own materials for Nursing 179, she was not involved in the design or revision of the course. As to the nature of the instruction provided in Nursing 179, the Grievor testified that some of the instruction was directed to the acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique, such as taking blood pressure, but that this was not the primary focus of the course. In this regard, she explained that students 12 had to learn to interpret results in the context of individual residents and take into account the "human response" when providing care. In contrast to the evidence of the Grievor, Ms. Kirkby expressed the view that the instruction provided in Nursing 179 is limited to the acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique as it relates to the hands-on application of nursing theory. Ms. Kirkby also testified that the Guideline Objectives document constitutes a prescribed instructional format although she acknowledged that the Grievor had discretion with regard to the teaching methods utilized to achieve those objectives. According to Ms. Kirkby, the Grievor also provided instruction under the direction of the Co-ordinator, Ms. Weed. As well, Ms. Kirkby testified that in the fall of 1996, the Grievor did not fulfill a number of the responsibilities of a Professor. In particular, she was not involved in the design, revision or updating of courses, nor was she involved in the provision of academic leadership which included participating on curriculum and other consultative committees. In this regard, Ms. Kirkby testified that for a number of years prior to 1997, and in the 1996/97 academic year in particular, virtually all Professors in the nursing program were involved in developing a collaborative curriculum with the University of Western Ontario. Nevertheless, a document introduced by the Union indicates that in the fall of 1996, there were a number of full-time Professors in nursing and other programs who were not involved in curriculum or other consultative committee work. Moreover, Ms. Kirkby did not dispute that there were six full-time Professors in the nursing program who did not perform this work during the period from 1992 to 1996. Finally, the Union produced a SWF for an Instructor in which time was assigned under complimentary functions for attending Divisional and program team meetings. It was the submission of Mr. Blair, on behalf of the Union, that while there is some overlap in the duties of the Professor and Instructor classifications, the collective agreement specifically limits the duties to be performed by an Instructor. In this case, it was contended that the Grievor did not provide instruction according to a prescribed instructional format as the Guideline Objectives for Nursing 179 did not specify the pedagogical methods to be used. Moreover, it was contended that the instruction provided by the Grievor extended well beyond the acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique as it pertained to interpretative skills and matters such as the psychosocial assessment of residents. Mr. Blair further contended that the Grievor had little interaction with the Co-ordinator during the fall of 1996 and clearly did not provide instruction under her direction. ]4 Furthermore, although the College relied on the fact that the Grievor was not involved in curriculum development, it was submitted that this accounted for only a small percentage of the Grievor's time when she was classified as a Professor and could not be construed as a core function of the Professor classification. In the result, Mr. Blair submitted that the Grievor was improperly classified as an Instructor in the fall of 1996 and asked the Board to find that she ought to have been classified as a Professor. It was the submission of Mr. Atkinson, on behalf of the College, that the issue in this case is not simply whether the Grievor performed the duties of an Instructor during the relevant period. Instead, consideration must be given to the duties of both the Instructor and Professor classifications and a determination made as to which is the "best fit". In this regard, Mr. Atkinson contended that while there is some overlap in job duties, the distinguishing features of the Professor classification are set out in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the class definition and relate to the design, revision and updating of courses as well as the provision of academic leadership. These responsibilities, it was submitted, were not carried out by the Grievor in the fall of 1996. As to the Instructor classification, Mr. Atkinson contended that the class definition affords an incumbent considerable latitude with respect to the t5 teaching methods to be used. It was further contended that the Guideline Objectives document for Nursing 179 constitutes a prescribed instructional format and that the instruction provided by the Grievor involved hands-on skills training and, therefore, was directed to a "manipulative skill or technique" as provided by the class definition. Moreover, it was submitted that the nature of the Grievor's interaction with the Co-ordinator was consistent with that to be expected in a collegial academic setting. In the result, Mr. Atkinson contended that the Grievor was properly classified as an Instructor in the fall of 1996 and asked that the grievance be dismissed. In determining whether the Grievor was properly classified as an Instructor when assigned to teach Nursing 179 in the fall of 1996, we agree with the College that it is not sufficient to simply consider whether the Grievor was performing the duties of an Instructor as set out in the class definition. Instead, consideration must be given to the definitions for both the Instructor and Professor classifications and a determination made as to which is the better fit. In the Board's view, this approach is consistent with that adopted in Lambton College of Applied Arts and Technology and Ontario Public Service Employees Union June 24, 1981 (Palmer (unreported)) and Ontario Public Service Employees Union and George Brown College May 12, 1993 (Mitchnick (unreported)). As both counsel acknowledged, there is some overlap in job duties between the Instructor and Professor classifications. There are, however, certain distinguishing features and in the Board's view, in determining which of the two classifications is the better fit, consideration must be given to the language of the class definitions. In this regard, the Board notes that the class definition for Instructor explicitly restricts the duties that may be assigned to an incumbent of that classification. In particular, the definition provides that the duties and responsibilities of an Instructor are limited to the provision of instruction through prepared courses of instruction and according to prescribed instructional formats. Moreover, instruction is limited to that directed to the acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique and is to be provided under the direction of a Professor. Notwithstanding these requirements, however, an Instructor is free to provide a learning environment which makes effective use of resources and select suitable learning materials from among those provided or identified to facilitate students' attainment of course objectives. The nature of the duties and responsibilities to be carried out by an Instructor are then delineated and the definition concludes by providing that an Instructor may be called upon to contribute to other activities such as the procurement and control of instructional supplies and equipment. As to the nature of the duties performed by the Grievor in the fall of 1996, as indicated previously, the Grievor taught Nursing 179, the clinical course l? in the first semester of the nursing program. The applicable course information sheet provides that in this course, students apply the knowledge gained in the theory and laboratory components of the program in a clinical setting. In addition to the course information sheet, there is a Guideline Objectives document containing a series of modules specifying the objectives to be achieved by students during the course. Although these objectives are set out in some detail, in the Board's view, the document cannot be characterized as "a prescribed instructional format" within the meaning of the Instructor class definition. While the Board recognizes that this definition affords an incumbent some latitude in providing a suitable learning environment, the document, nevertheless, details the objectives to be achieved rather than outlining the instruction to be provided. This is, perhaps, not altogether surprising, given that the course necessarily focuses on issues which arise in relation of the health of individual residents. Moreover, even if the Guideline Objectives document could be characterized as a prescribed instructional format, we are of the view that the Grievor duties were not limited to instruction directed to the "acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique". In this regard, the Board notes that this aspect of the Instructor class definition was previously considered in St. Lawrence College of Applied Arts and Technology and Ontario Public Service Employees Union March 25, 1981 (Weatherill (unreported)). That award involved a course which was remarkably similar to the course taught by the Grievor in this case except that the St. Lawrence College award concerned a clinical course in the health care aide program rather than the diploma nursing program. Moreover, although the Board in St. Lawrence College award did not adopt a better fit analysis and considered only the class definition of Instructor, the comments of the majority of the Board are, nevertheless, relevant to the interpretation of that definition. In this regard, the majority determined that in supervising students in the clinical course, the Grievor's work was not limited to instruction directed to the acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique. On this issue, the Board commented as follows: ·.. we have taken an overall view of the grievor's work in the supervision of the clinical work of students in the Health Care Aide program, that work being of the essence of the grievor's teaching activities. With respect to each day at which students are in attendance at a nursing home or home for the aged, the grievor chooses the patients with whom each student is to work - matching as far as possible the condition and needs of the patient with the instructional and practice requirements of the student. There is a "pre-conference" of an hour's duration at which nursing care plans are set up by the students and reviewed with them by the Grievor. The students then go about the nursing care tasks that are involved. During the course of the twelve-week clinical program, the curriculum is followed and many "guideline" requirements are dealt with. Throughout this time the Grievor may be the only Registered Nurse(apart from a Head Nurse) on the floor of the institution, and necessarily bears professional responsibility for the care given to residents. At the end of the day, there is a "post-conference" where the day's activities are analysed and discussed. Certainly many of the tasks learned by the Health care Aide students involve "manipulative skills". While there is as with any skill a cognitive element involved, it remains, for example, that changing a bedpan is a manipulative skill - despite the view of the Teaching Master to the contrary. A great many of the particular skills which the students must learn and practice are quite properly described as "manipulative" notwithstanding that they are to be performed with care and sensitivity to individual needs. This latter aspect of the work, however, serves to highlight the distinction we see between the grievor's work and that of an instructor whose work is "limited to the acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique". The grievor's work is not so limited, but is - surely fundamentally - directed to the teaching of attitudes, planning abilities, the "activation" of patients and the performance of nursing care tasks for which the "manipulative skills" required are a necessary but not sufficient foundation. Although the College submitted that the majority of the Board in the St. Lawrence College award incorrectly interpreted the term "manipulative skill or technique" and contended that we ought to decline to follow that award, we note that the St. Lawrence College award concerned precisely the same language in issue in this case which was interpreted in the context of circumstances substantially similar to the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we are of the view that it would be inappropriate to depart from the reasoning in the St. Lawrence College award unless we were convinced that the award was clearly wrong. This is particularly so when the prior award was rendered many years ago and the language of the class definition remains unchanged. In fact, to come to any other conclusion would simply encourage the parties to re-arbitrate issues which would appear to have been settled for some time in the hope that a differently constituted board may adopt a different interpretation. 20 In this case, the Board is not convinced that the interpretation of a manipulative skill or technique adopted by the majority of the Board in the St. Lawrence College award was clearly wrong. We also note that as in the St. Lawrence College award, when teaching Nursing 179, the Grievor was responsible for assigning students to residents; conducting conferences with students; and reviewing nursing care plans. As well, she was often the only Registered Nurse on the floors of the Hospital to which students were assigned and was professionally responsible for the care provided. Moreover, although some of the instruction was clearly directed to the acquisition of manipulative skills, such as taking blood pressure and transferring residents, instruction was not limited to such skills but extended to matters such as the psychosocial assessment of patients, planning, communication (both verbal and non-verbal) as well as a variety of issues requiring students to take into account the response of individual residents when carrying out nursing tasks. Furthermore, although the Instructor class definition specifies that instruction is to be provided under the direction of a Professor, the evidence indicates that there was little contact between the Grievor and Ms. Weed. In fact, as the Grievor recalled, she spoke with Ms. Weed on only one occasion regarding the progress of students in the clinical course. In the result, it is apparent that in a number of significant respects, the Grievor did not fit within the Instructor classification when assigned to teach Nursing 179 in the fall of 1996. As to the classification of Professor, the introductory paragraph of the class definition indicates that a Professor is responsible for providing academic leadership and for developing an effective learning environment for students. Ms. Kirkby testified that the Grievor carried out the latter but not the former responsibility in the fall of 1996. As to paragraph (a) of the definition, the evidence indicates that the Grievor was not involved in the design, revision or updating of courses. In particular and among other matters, she did not engage in consultation, nor was she involved in defining, evaluating or validating course objectives; specifying or approving learning approaches; or selecting learning materials. As to the teaching duties set out in paragraph (b) of the class definition, Ms. Kirkby acknowledged that the Grievor carried out all of these duties in the fall of 1996. Moreover, although the College maintained that there is significant similarity between these duties and the corresponding duties and responsibilities set out in the Instructor class definition, the latter definition contains limitations not applicable to the Professor classification. In this regard, regularly scheduled instruction provided by an Instructor is to be carried out 22 according to the format prescribed for the course. The Instructor definition also contemplates consultation with the Professor responsible for the course regarding the effectiveness of the instruction in attaining course objectives. Paragraph (c) of the Professor class definition specifies that an incumbent is responsible for the provision of academic leadership which includes providing guidance to Instructors and participating in the work of curriculum and other consultative committees. There would appear to be no dispute that providing guidance to Instructors was not a responsibility carried out by Professors in the nursing program prior to the fall of 1996 as all instruction was provided by Professors. As to committee work, the evidence indicates that there were a number of Professors, including some in the nursing program, who did not perform this work in the fall of 1996. The Grievor's SWF's when classified as Professor also indicate that in some semesters, she was not involved in committee work although she did attend Divisional and level meetings. Nevertheless, the Union introduced a SWF for an Instructor which included time for attending Divisional and program team meetings. Accordingly, it does not appear that attendance at these latter meetings can be regarded as a distinguishing feature of the Professor classification. In the result, while it is apparent that the duties performed by the Grievor in the fall of 1996 do not fit squarely within either the Instructor or Professor classification, based on the analysis set out above, we find that the Professor classification is the better fit. Although the Grievor was not involved in designing, revising or updating courses, she carried out the teaching duties of that classification. Moreover, although she did not participate in committee work, this responsibility is not carried out by all Professors in each semester. Furthermore, the instruction provided by the Grievor was not subject to the explicit limitations set out in the Instructor class definition. The grievance is, therefore, allowed and the Board finds that in the fall of 1996, the Grievor was improperly classified as an Instructor and ought to have been classified as a Professor. Accordingly, she is entitled to compensation and the Board shall remain seised for purposes of implementation of this award and to 24 deal with remedial issues which cannot be resolved by the parties. DATED AT TORONTO, this 3rd day of April, 1998. Chair See Addendum Attached Peter Hetz College Nominee Jon McManus Union Nominee ADDENDUM Re: Fanshawe College & OPSEU Grievance: RL O'Brian Although I am in agreement with the outcome of the award in this case, I do not agree with all of the reasoning employed to reach that outcome. Firstly, the evidence is clear that the hallmark of the Professor is that he/she can be and is assigned the various duties outlined in the class definition. It is not surprising that not every Professor is assigned curriculum committee or other committee work in each and every semester. This does not take away from the fact that. Professors arc assigned this work, not Instructors. In the fall of 1996, the Grievor was not assigned this work. The fact that not aH Professors were assigned committee work in the fall of 1996 does not necessarily support the conclusion that the Grievor should be classified as a Professor. Secondly, the phrase "under the direction of" appears in both class definitions. As the Board points out, the Grievor testified that she has essentially the same relationslfip with fl~e Coordinator of the Nursing Program when she was classified as a Professor and as ,an hzstructor. My m~de~tanding of the evidence was that there was very little interaction in both situations. This is not surprising, given the acadenfic enviromnent of a community college where teachers, whether the)' are Professors or Instructors, are employed to instruct students and are given the freedom to do so. Direction and guidance is given to incumbents of either classification, if and when it is necessaLw to do so. The fact that little direction or guidance was given to the G~%vor as an Instructor in the fall of 1996 does not necessarily mean that she should be classified as a Professor.