Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 89-11-15HEADNOTE OPSEU File No. 87Z644 OPSEU Local 110 Article (s) UNION (OPSEU) vs. Fanshawe College Award dated 15 November 1989 (H.D. Brown) Re: G. Kapp The academic bargaining unit filed a Union grievance alleging that a technician in the electronic general servicing program had assumed quasi teaching duties and that he should be treated as a teaching master. The Arbitrator found that although the technician had in fact performed such quasi teaching duties in the past, he was told by the Chairman to stop this when his position was reviewed upon implementation of the new classification system for support staff in 1986. The Union argued that notwithstanding the Chairman's instructions, the new job description for the technician was ambiguous and the technician continued to perform teaching functions in the interest of the program, from which the College was the beneficiary. The Arbitrator rejected this submission, noting the evidence of the technician on cross examination that he pushed his interpretation of the words in the job description to the limit in order to make the job more interesting for himself. The Fanshawe College decision of G. Brent, 1987, is distinguished because of the clarity of the employer's instructions in this case that the technician desist from his quasi teaching functions. Grievance denied. IN THE MATTEIq C}e' Arq ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ~'ANSHAWE COLLEGE (The College) AND: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (The Union) AND IN THE MATTER OF A UNION GRIEVANCE (OPSEU ~87Z644) BOARD DF' ARBITRATION: HOWARD D. BROWN, CHAIRMAN J. McMANUS, UNION NOMINEE JANET SLONE-TAYLOR, COLLEGE NOMINEE APPEARANCES FOR THE COLLEGE: BRENDA BONLBY, COUNSEL D. BUSCHE, ASST. DIREUTOR H.R. N. PROKOS, CMA£RMAN, ELECTRICAL DIV. APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION: G.A. RICHARDS, ~iEVANCE OFFICER G. FORDYCE, CH±E~~ STEP, ART, LOCAL 110 G. KAPP D. HOWARD HEARINGS IN THIS MATTER WERE HEL~ AT LONDON ON OCTOBER 18TH, 1988 AND JUNE 15TH, 1989. AWARD 'I'Ve Union c±alms that George Kapp, classl~ea as a Technician by the College, was performing teaching duties and s~oula nave Deen classitied as a full t~me 'reaching Master with salary ana benefits in accordance with that position wnlcn would be covered by the academic bargaining unit. The Union seeks payment of the Union dues to which it is ent~t±e~ un~er this claim. The Employer's position was that the position pertormed by Mr. Kapp was "most closely associated with the support staff bargaining unit and not the acaaemlc oargaining unit" and denied the grievance. '£ne ma~ter was subsequently reterre~ ~o arbitration pursuant to the terms ot the Collec~lv~ Agreement in ettec~ uetw~en the parties and came on ~or ~Iearlng as above noted. There is no dispute Desween ~ne parties as to the jurisGlcs~on ot the Board in this matter. The grievance is dated October 2nd, 19~/ a~ WhiCh time ~r. Kapp was 5ne incumbent in the position o~ Technician w~icn reports .to the Chairman, Electrical - Electronics 'recnnology. He vacated the position at the end of that year ano Mr. ~oward became the Technician in 3anuary 198~ WhO continued with the duties of that position. The College took the position that the extension of t~e Union's grievance to lnc±ude Mr. Howard was inappropriate as the grievance related to Mr. Kapp who had also tllea a grievance claiming re-classification to Technologlss. The Employer submitted that it was the individual involved whose position was at issue as to what bargaining unit it belonged, se~ore that was determined, Mr. Kapp transferred into another support staff position after the grievance was filed. The BoarG ruled at the hearing that it would proceeG to aea± wl~n ~ne grievance ~iled ~ith it as to the position held by Mr. ~app and the issue of whether that position is in the academic bargaining unit as c±almeG Dy the. Union as grievance. Yne ~oard will determine that ~ssue an~ reserve its jurisdiction wltn regarc to t~e Getermination of any remedy snou±G that grievance be successful. ~lr. ~app has been classified as a Tecnnlclan since 1975 ant nas peen employed in the Electronfcs General Servicing ~rogram where he worked until January ±9~E when ~e applleG ~or another Technician position eisew~]ere, but as o~ c~ Ga~e o£ ~earing, was classitleG as a '£echnician B in the Electronics area associated with the program. In hiS present job he maintains and services equipment anG nas no involvement with students. At the time of the grievance he was working as a 'technician in the program under the Glrection of the co-Ordinator, Mr. Peters, Teaching Master, who also had Tecnnologist working with him. The stuaenns in the program are involved in studying the servicing of electronic equipment in a 48 week course. The theory which involves reading an instruction is given Dy Znsnructors in lectures aha auclo presentations. On average there were 15 students in Phase I - Basic Electronics. '£ne students are taken in through [~anpower Re-Training are fee payers. There are tcur periods in a day which are ~:uu a.m. to 2:30 p.m., ~londay - Thursday and to 12:3u p.m. on Friday. Their snucen~s are taught in a lab which has two work benches and desks. Mr. Kapp said the students would be with him for about ~5~ in a typical day, the balance with tne Teaching 2~ast~r and some time on sel~ stuGy. The students have two text books and material written by the stair. They use audio an~ video presentations which the stuaents discuss with the neacner and himself about equally. 'me nanG-outs to the students were autnorzzeG Dy the Instructor before Kapp became involved in the program but were revised and re-written by both or them. ne sal~ his job involved a co-operative arrangement between nimseit anG the 'reaching !±aster in deciding the ~articular subject area for the courses. Sim~±arl±y, riley shared the responsibility for the tapes, some of which lie proGuced himself and said there was very ±lttle input from the teacher on those tapes. He reports to the Chairman o~ the Division, Mr. Prokas, ana aeals with the Teaching Master on a daily basis as ne said the Chairman has very little involvement as to their shared responsibilities in the production ot tnese materials. tie said the answers o~ the students in writing are studied jointly Dy nlm and the instructor and are correcteG Dy wnoever is available. If the teacner was lecturing, than he woula respond to the questions of the scuaents, but if the instructor was available and the group needed his controL, ne would make those directions. The Gucles were divided daily between them. as Gue to the nature of the course advance notice is not possible as stucenns work at their own pace. They do their own reading and t~en attend a lecture, tne nime ~or which they choose. As well, he conducted lectures Eot about B years ouu ~on at t~e time o~ t~e grievance as ~r. ~ro~os had told him in the Fall oz ±~ that oecause of the new Collective Agreement, instructing was no longer par~ o~ i~is jo~. [Ir. Kapp supervise~ tne students' progress in the lab and monitored those results. He helped them ~.;~n nnelr problems and answered their quesn~ons. The outline for Basic ElectronIcs unit No. 10 was typeG Dy h~m tot cne course, prepared by t~m and t~e ~reacn~ng ?[aster. It was also re-written to suit their needs. Both he and the lns%ructor prepared tests and, depena~g on WhO is aval±aD~, ~amlnlstered them to the students. He rea~ tne resu~ ~ scored the test. He discussed the progress of students wl~n them. Me sa~u uur~ng t~e re-classi~icatlon.pruc~uu£e in the College ne nag an input in the joD description (Exhibit 4) w~lcn wa~ approved by Management. The position su~uary zs: "Under general supervlszon of the Chairman, provides technical suppor5 and guidance to the '£'eacn~ng ~4aster responsible tot the Electronic General Serv~czng Frogram Dy supervising and maintaining the conuroi o~ Laboratory equipment and supplies. ~u~ports the learning environm~n~ Dy oemonsurating use o~ equiment and the design and preparation ot lear~g [.[r. Kapp said t~at descr~puzon omitted the maintenance ccn%acu with students by t~e Technician out emphasized the control ot ecuipment which he said was a minor part o[ the 3o0. zne curies and responsibilities ±l~uuc in the job cescri')tlon are: I - bupe['vlse LaD Projects 2 - Assistin:j in hanging out, monitoring and scoring oE uesus, check stuGen5 attendance and maintain records 3 - Develops and produces ay materials and computer programs for teaching and testing aids Dy producing video and audio tapes - 6 - 4 - A£ter ~lscussion ~ith the Teaching ~Iaster, designs ann assists in preparation o£ n~wly revised lab methods anG proceGures. Selects tests and evaluates new equipment, researches new equipment and/or materials. Arranges tot personal supplies by preparing purchase requisitions and maintains inventory 5 - 5cneau±es use of facilities, maintains and controls reference library in shop anG tool and equipment loans." · £ne first subsection refers to the ~emonstration of proper use of equipment and to "assist ssuGents in solving proD±ems on the operation of equipment" WhiCh ne saiC took about hat~ of his time Du% was ~alrly accurate as to ~ls 3o~. ~ne balance o~ that subsection is "aemonstrate use of acquired know±eGge no effectively trouble shoot various hypes of complex electronic circuits and equipment. £4aintain or supervise repair and maintenance of equipment by stuGen5s. Supervise construction oz new equipment by students." Than 2oD Gescr~ption was dated November 19U7. The prior job description for 'l'ecnnlczan, which was in place at the time o~ the grievance, being dated November 19~, was subject of his grievance in %ne claim for re-classification to Teci~nologlst, the specific parts of which were ag~eee with [.Ir. Prokas with nse exception of the designation of Tecl]nlclan B rather than in the Technologist raml±y of jobs. In the process oz than 3oD description, he acknowledged that ~Ir. Prokas had to±c nlm that he was not to teach and has not done any torma± ±ecturing since - 7 - that time. The suDsequent job description resulted trom the same process and nas little difference in it and aoes not refer to actual ~eacnlng. In tne absence st the Teaching [4aster, ;4r. Knapp said the he had Deen appointed as a sessional teacher to relieve ~lm in ~ne course and another support start was appointed as Tecnnlcian s ~or that period. Because st his experience as a Technician and by teacnlKlg ~e course, he said i~ he was llml~U ~o ~ne exact duties of his 3o0 description it would not have Seen as interesulng and took on more of the duties wltn the students Enan the job description indicateo. 'me Teaching ~4aster wlun whom ne worked closely in Phase I was responsible tot the program, defined the oo3ecnlves and prepared the course ma=erzal which he approved for use Dy the s~uuenns. As part st the continuing nature o~ the course and his famil~arlny with it, while he agreed that tne Teaching masner zs responsible to teach the course anu his role was to give tecnn~cal support, he became more ~nvolved with the students in the course.- 'mu ~'uacning }-~aster lectured the stucenus in groups, the others would be in the Lab anu ne would deal with their equlpmunu problems and would assist the students with their sate operation %.;hich is ~ne si his responsibilities along wz~n selling them how the equipment works anG how to use it. He said ~nat he had agreed to the removal ot the reEerence to teaching from the job description as ~ was qualified as support staf~ and in that capaclny was deemed not to neacn anG would not re-classify him as a neacner. The teaching was then to be perzormeG Dy the Teaching Master and ne covere~ the Oest he could with t~e llm~na~o~]s imposed, but took aGvantage ot what was in the jOD Jescription anG pusne~ it to the limits he could in ceallng wlt~ the students. He was not aware ~nat Mr. Prokos monitored him or the course. [4r. t'oroyce, Chief Steward in the academic Local bargaining unit anG a £'uacnlng [laster since 19~0, '..~as cai±et as a witness Dy the Union. An ou3ecnzon was mace ~y ~{s. Bowlby as to the re±evance of his evidence to 5ne zssue. The Board reserved its deczs~on an the hearing as to t~e object,on and ~earO 5ne evauence. The Board nas now i~ad an opportunity to cons~Ger the evidence in re±~Lzon to the cause ot action and tlnos u~an n~e evidence sought to De znnroouceC Oy Mr. Fordyce in these 3roceeolngs zs not relevant to the status ot ~]r. mapp in the Electronzcs program. He did not have personal know, ledge ot the ~u~zes performed by ~r. Kapp in that area, nor a~ ne Know ho%~ the Technicians were useG 1~% the Electronic Division w~ece ne nad not worked, but ~annor was lnvolveG in the ~noGitieG apprentlces~ip - 9 - program at the College. As His evzu~nce aoes not have proDltlve value, the Boar~ has ~zsregaraed His evidence ~n ~ns consideration of its award. '£ne oosection of the College is allowed. ~.lr. ~rokos is the Chairman of the Elecnrlcal - Electronics Dzvzslon and manages the Electronics General Servicing program which runs between 4~ anG ~z weeks with a conulnuous student intake in groups o~ 3 - D monthly intervals. ~n~ ~u~ents work thelr own way ti%rough mouu±es, theory and printed materials along w~tl] other media aids. '£ney may nave group lectures or ln~!vl~ua± assistance of the Teaching Master. 'l'ne students co :practical LaD work ~o rez~£urce the theory and to develop practzcal SKiI±S. The Teaching [4aster deals wzun small groups of students as =ney are at various steps of the program, in that regard it is essential to re±zeve the instructor ot any routine mechanical activities which are not strictly teaching in the individuallzeG learning situation so that the teacher can uevote himself to the smaller group of students as requ~rea although other activities are delegated to a Tecnnlclan, who assists the proGuction of the packages preparea sy 5ne instructor. 'rae Technician makes the equipment available to the stuGents and ensures that equ~pmenu an~ supplies are avazzaDle. He is responsible tot the ~a£n~enance o[ that equipment ano 5or une orGering of supplies as requirea. 1~ a stuGent has difficulty with equipment or. needs guidance, it is within the Technician's scope to provide such gulGance and to demonstrate the correct operation os the equipment and is responsible Eot nne safety in the Lab. When a snuaent is ready to write a test, he can obtain it from the Tecnnlclan who would supervise the test and score the paper using the standard answer sheets and help tabulate tne ssuaents progress nnrough the course. Mr. Prokos sai~ 5na~ in ±986 when the job cescrlutions were being discussed, ne was concerned with %~nat ~4r. Kapp had told him that ne nag peen lecturing. ~r. Prokos took the opportunIty ~o make it clear to him %nat it was not in his job description an~ ne ShOUld restrict himself to the ~emonstration of equipment anG to those ac%ivlties in the job description. He sazG ne followed up with these instructions with the Teaching ~asters to make sure they understood the limitation o[ ~.[r. Kapp's role ~n the Learning Centre. He said that ne had not previously oeen aware that [4r. Kapp had been instrucnlng and had not authorized him to do so other than when he had been appolnne~ as a sessional replacement for the Teaching Master and another Technician replaced him. Mr. Prokos sai~ that in was clear that when i~r. Kapp reverne~ to the Technician position, he wouz~ stop ~he extra duties which woulG De those ot the Teaching [.laster and not in accora with the Technician position. ,e ae±eted all references to teaching in the 3ob description, dated >~ovemDer l~uo, and instructed Mr. Kapp to restrict his work to the duties in than aescription after which He did not do any%ning which was teaching to his Rnowieage. was not aware that Mr. ~app took up questions ot students in the LaDs nor ~evlsing questions for tests ~or ~a~ng them up or being ~nvolved in course materials. He understood that mucn o~ ~ne work would be updating existing material as it is part o~ the Technician's responsibl±~y to produce packages ~or teaching under the direction the instructor for the purposes of the students program. The intent of the ~o±lege was to have the Technician supporting tne Teaching Master and to relieve the teacner of the more routine aamlnlstrative type of work so that the teacher could devote himself to lecturing ana managing the learning of t~e stuGents in the Learning Centre anJ to allow the instructor to provlGe an individual service to the students as necessary in the Continuous intake Program. ~r. Prokos said the reference to "supervise Lab ~roject" in the job description nas a range of application znclu~zng such things as attendance recorGs anG other clerical functions and some role as to answering student questions zn completing the Lab and the use or equzpment. Under the direction of the Teaching ~laster the Technician COUIG use Giagrams and prepare an exercise ko De Gone in the LaD Dut that is the responsibi±l~y os tne Teaching Master, a±snough both have a significant involvement in Labs. The Technician demonstrates the use o£ ~quipment to the stu~enss and the application of the equipment which is reterred to in the lectures in c±ass. The Technician has a vlLa± ro±e in their learning of safety requirements in dealing with the equipment. Tne '£echnician prepares audio tapes anG operates the camera and coulc prepare the script along with the instructor. The research involved in the 3ou aeals with equipment and not teaching aria reters to sDecitications ot equlpmen[ anG aval±aDility ~or the cours~ requirements. The purpose ot t~e LaD lS ~0 proviGe practical exercises to the stuGents as to the theory rece~vec ~n ~ne lectures and to reinforce t~a~ theory. ~4ucn o~ their time is in the Lab where they Geveiop their practica± sKl±~. £ne G~scuss~ons at t~e LaDs ~nvolv~ managing the learning process ant snoulG De L~r~ormed Dy the instructor ana ~nrougn the other resources ava~±aD±e to them. He said it %.;ou±d De Improper tor a Technician to lecture stuGenss. 'l'ne program has Deen successZul because experienceG people invoiveG ~n ~ne program working as a team have responded to t~e r~Gs os t~e students. In ~olng so, the Technician does not carry our ~eaching functions as Mr. Kapp hag Gone until he had instructed him no~ to. sr. Prokos said he ~requently visits these areas anG observes the classes and what is going on in the program. ~e nag not seen ~4r. Kapp do any teaching. The Technician does no~ ana±ys0 the test results but only takes them up ana scores them. He said there was no intent at any time to re-classify Mr. Kapp wnen ~ne job descrition was prepareG anG in confirmation o~ ~s duties as a Technician, Mr. ~app was instructed not to teach. The Union claims that wna~ mr. ~app did was substantially teaching and the Co±lege was aware ot it. In ~s submission the overlapping duties o~ the job supports its claim 5nat it talls within the class ~efinition oE '~eacn~ng Master. It does not require tna~ an employee must persorm all of the tasks to fail'within a particular 3o0 aescrlption and in that regard relleG on the duties set torsn ~n Doth job descriptions in suppor% of its claim that ~nls position involved teaching which for this program is a co-'operative teaching process. 'me orientation ot the 'recnnician's position is teaching rasher than support unlike the ]ob evaluation guidance chart defining the Tecnnlcian job family. It was submitteo that the responsibility of t~%e grlevor went beyond the Technician de[lnlnlon, it was submitted that the job descrIption in 1986 was ambiguous ana a~nnough Mr. Kapp was told by ~Ir. Pro;~os not to teach, his continuing activities included teaching duties and what ne ola unoer that job description Ooaroea on academic as there was sufficient E±exlbility in the job description for that purpose. It was submitted that na~ Mr. Kapp's activities been closely restricted, as suggested by Mr. Prokos, the et~ec~veness of the program ~oulG ~ave Peen reduced for the stuGents WhO took advantage oz Mr. Kapp's experience in that program rather than wa~nlng for the Teaching Master to Gea± with their problems. Me£erence was made to Re Fanshawe ~oz±ege anO OPSEU [unreported - Brent, April 1987). '£ne Un~on seeks recognition of Mr. Kapp as a ~u±£ t~me Teaching [4aster in the acaGemlc bargaining unit from 1986 to tne uate ne left the program. The suOmzss~on zor the College is that the Un~on must estao±~sn ~nat Mr. Kapp was engaged Dy t~e co~±~ge as a teacher and performing those duties as a direction and therefore fell within the academic bargaznlng unit. The intent of the College was that ~{r. Kapp worked as a TechnicIan to provide support services to the Teaching [:aster in the program. He performed the core duties o£ the oez~nition of a Technician. It was suomltted that [4r. Kapp conceded that his teacn~ng role was beyond what requ~rec Dy t~e College an~ t~e lnstruc~o~ o~ ~r. Pro,os. - 15 - The Teaching Master is responslD±e to define course oD3ec~lves and to prepare and approve course materials and is responsible for the teaching os the course. Mr. Kapp's ro±e was technical support for the Teacn~ng Master as particularly set out'in both 3oo aescriptions. Itis duties are within tne '£ecnnician definition. It was suDm~5~ed that Mr. Prokos did not ignore wna~ the grievor was aolng in the interest of the et~iciency of the course, DU~ ra~ner he clearly instructed Mr. ~app not to do teaching and to carry on as a Technician ana no~ perform the duties os ~ne '~eaching Master who was responslD±e for teaching the course. In t~e ~'ansnawe College awar~, referred to above, the Union grieved that Co-op ssuGents hired to work ~n a Lab were performing teaching ~unctions and should se recognized as members o~ the bargaIning unit. It was argued by the College in that case tna~ assistance to students with problems may "arguably be teaching, .the core [unc%~on of the position is not teacn~ng.'~ '£ne Board referred to the G~sslnction between employees in the acaGemlc oargaining unit and support staE5 bargaining unit ~ollow~ng trom ~n~ C0±±ective Agreement and t~e College's ~o±±ect~ve Bargaining Act. The BoarG s~aseG at page 12: "All of the cases c~teG ~o us %~hich dealt with teaching hours recognized implicitly if not explicit±y, Dy the teacher as - 16 - someone whose primary or core function is teaching. We ao not consider that there has been any [unGamental disagreement about that among the arbitrators who have conslaered what teaching is in the context os trying to determine whether someone who nas agreed to be a teacher, is engageG in the teacnlng hour. Whatever else a teacher may be or do, her - his prime Eunctlon is to be the numan instrument of instruction relating to the course curriculum which. has been determined by the College . . · If the evidence haa snown that the intent of the College was to place an employee in the Lab who WOUIG De tnere to deal with student problems in relation to the course content, ~nen it is likely that such a person coula De considered to be a teacher. It is acknowledged in arbitral jurisprudence that an employee who exceeds the requirements of the job without the authority of Management cannot claim re-classification as a result . . . So long as the duties o~ tne Tecnnician in connecslon with the introduction of the students to the LaD anG assisting students is confined to the use of the equipment found in the LaD rather than to be the resolution of problems with the course content, then even though this may involve instruction or assistance in how to use the equipmens, ~t ls the sort of instruction which is not inconsistent w~tn a Technician's duties in relation to sa~e guarding and maintaining the equipment found in the Lab . · ." In tha~ case the Board found that the difficulty whici% gave rise to Glspute was in the failure to the Colleg~ to ~ive specific instructions as to the scope o~ duties. This case supports ~ne College's position in the presen~ ~ispute ~ut we no%e 5nat the facts here are stronger than that which was Gealt with by by the Brent Board because the evidence is clear ~or sr. Kapp and ~r. Prokos that - 17 - aerlnl~e and clear instructions were given Dy Mr. Prokos to Kapp in 1986 not to do any ~eacnlng in the Lab. That instruction was given when discussions took p£ace concerning ti%e re-classification of positions in the College and when Mr. Frokos first became aware that Mr. ~app had been conducting lectures or in e~ect teaching in the Lab and assisting the Teaching Master in that regarG. ~nen that came to Mr. Prokos attention, Mr. Kapp's practice was stoppe~ Dy a clear direction. Mr. Kapp acKnow±eaged that he old in fact stop teaching after tna~ Glrection was given to nlm. ~r. Kapp's only subsequent teacnlng Guties arose when ne replaced the Teaching Master in hiS aDsence and was appointed as a sessional teacher anG supported by a replacement Technician. we ~ind on the evidence that it was never the intention of the College to assign teaching duties to the Technician in ~ne Lab. Mr. Kapp acknowledged that he pushed the interpretation of the 3oD ~escription whether the first or ±a~er of such is considered, to do those things which he felt would make the 3OD more ~nteresting to him. With his background of experience in the Geveiopment of this course and as well teaching ~n a replacement capacity, there is no doubt ot his aDl±ity as an individual to perform ~ne tasks w~ic~ ~e took on n~mse±E in assisting students in the LaD uy ~nstructions and mini lectures. The position - 18 - however, which is at issue, is ~nat ota Technician B and that must be examined in t~e context of the job aescrlptlon in et£ect in 1986 from which ~ne grievance arose and the job evaluation gulae chart. The Technician is GescrlOed as a job family as follows: "'~nls Eamily covers positions of employees waose major responsibilities involve the care, maintenance, set up operation, demonstration, distriDu~lon anG security of instruct~ona± anG allied equipment and materials ana nne preparation of materials for use in lnsnructional programs and admin~snran~ve services. This ~amily also covers position in plaht mamnnenance Geparnments involving the planning, ±ay-out anG speclz~cations ~or alterations and adGltions t? existing ~acl±mnzes." The summary of the respons~Ollity of a Technician B in tl~at cnar~ Is: "Fosltion incumbents perform a var~eny o~ technical nasKs in the maintenance operation' and demonstration o~ nn~ College's ~acllities anG equipment. - Frovides technical support ~n ma~[a~ning ant operating equipment; - ~monstrates correct techniques Eo~ c~ use ot materials and equipment; - ~ens up and performs a wide range o~ experlmenns; - Haintains equipment recorGs and undertakes trouble shoo~lng anG repair work; - Ci%ecks student acslvzny" The evidence or ~r. Kapp concerning his specific - 19 - duties and the comparison o~ that evidence with the requirements o~ the job description ~its in the ma]orlty those requirements os a £ecnnlcian B in that guide. Mr. ~app aid provide technical support in ~ne course in assisting the Teaching Master. ~e ~id demonstrate correct tecnnlques to the students and was responsible for the safe use of such equipment. ~e GiG repair work, maintained equipment an~ checked the student activity, ail os ~nese duties are consistent WlLn ~ne outies set out in the 3OD Gescription and more particularly expanGeG in the subsequent job description re~erreG in detail above. %-~e rind that the core duties o~ mr. Kapp were not tna~ o~ ~acnlng nor were such assignments ma~e ~o nlm but that his duties ~ell wlsnln the tour corners of the requirements os the technician's position set ~orsn ~n the job description, an employee cannot be found to have unilaterally upgraGed his classified position Dy assuming tasks wn~cn were in excess of his joD requirements ~ anG not authorizeG Dy ~ne College. ~.~r. Kapp had, at ±eas~ prior to 1986, exceeded the job requirements by the ~orm of instruction to stuaents which he undertook in the LaD Dut Dy doing so exceeGed ~he Technician B job description ~n which he was properly slotted. By unilateral assumpslon ot those lnssructlonal duties he could not torce n~s re-c±ass~t~catlon ~o a n~gner level by the College. - 20 - A '£eacnlng master is involved with teaching course conEent to students ot assigned courses aha carries out regularly scneauled instruction to them along with other duties as set tor~n in the Class ue~lnltion. While some of the aspects or mr. Kapp's duties in the Lab had an instructional purpose, which to some extent could be found to overlap the GUileS O~ a Teaching Master such as deve±oplng instructional materials anG meala presentations and evaluating s~u~en~ progress, ~nose duties were as acKnowledgeG Dy ~r. ~app, done under the general direction o~ the Teaching ~as~er w~o was responsible ~or tne courses in the program. ~.;e finG tnat the type of ~nstructions given by Mr. Kapp ~n cne circumstances ot this case, are such which fall within the Technician 3OD ~am~ly requirements and t~at ne ~l~ no~ pertorm the core duties ota Teaching ~aster set out in the Class Detinitlon ~or ~nat classification. The evl~nce is clear that Hr. Kapp's primary or core function was not ueacnin§ course content to students. It was made c£ear ~o ~im that the College requirements and its perception of his pos~u~on was that of a Technician and was to prov~Ge technical support to the Teacnzng master in the course. ~.~e do not accepu u~e submission ot the Union that [~r. FroKos ignored what ~..lr. Kap~) was ooing in interests of the program. On ~ne contrary, Mr. Prokos very clearly brought the instructional activities of ~r. Kapp to an end at the first opportunity to do so atter he learned o~ those ac%lvl~les. The 3oD description re~±ec~s nls direction as there is no requirement ~or teaching contained in eisner the initial or revised job descriptIons. The preparation of learning packages is within ~ne Tecnnician B job description. While some of the words useG in the description o[ the job duties may lead to the dicussion ot gray areas, as set out in the evidence, Mr. Kapp sa~ ne was pushing the interpretation of these worGs ~or his own use to make ~ne course more interesting for him. '~ne "pushing" or straining the meaning of worGs ~n a 3oD description does no~ 3us~l~y a claim ~or re-classification wnen taken in the context ok the job definition and requirements of the Col£e~. '~'ne duti~ referring to instruction are in the context of maintaining tecnn~ca± support as contemplated in tne Gemonstration o~ equipment referreG to ~n the job family definition. T~ere wa's no authorization given by t~e ~o±±ege to ~lr. Kapp at any time to perform ~nstructional duties beyond t~e requirements ot the technician's 3OD ~scrlp~lon. T~e evidence establishes that Mr. ~app's duties did not tail Within t~e Class Definition of a Teaching ~aster. The College intent was clear in these circumstances that a Tecnnlclan was required to give technical support to the Teaching Master who was responsible ~or this program an~ tne duties and responsibilities in tna~ progr,am Mr. Kapp were limited to the requirements of a Technician B as aetined. What Mr. Kapp did was to expand his responsibilities by taking on some o~ ~ne lnG±cia of a teacher but by doing so ~nere was no basis for re- classitlcanlon of his position which did not lnc±uae such Instructional activities nor was ne at any time authorized Dy tne Co±±ege to pertorm such duties. As we±g, nnose assumed responslDlllnles were stopped by the direction of ~4r. ProKos [o±±owing w~ic~ Mr. Kapp contlnue~ in nne technical support ~uncnlon tot the Teaching ~4aster who ~as respons~u~e no teach the program as assi~ne~ Dy College. Mr. Kapp acknowledged his role in support o~ the Teaching ~.~asner. On the evidence of Mr. Prokos wn~cn we accept, we canno~ inter that Mr. Prokos had alloweG ~:r. Kapp to exceeG nne Gutles set out in the job description. It was the responsibility ot the Teaching Master to det~ne the course oD3ecn~ves and prepare course materials anu no teach the course. The 'i:ecnn~cian job description very clearly prov~e nne basis for technical support Dy Technician B to a 'reacnlnw Master. Mr. Kapp's cannot be interpreteG or applied to fall with the Class Definition o~ a Teaching ~,~aster. ~e find on the ev~Gence that ~.~r. Kapp pertormec the core duties of a Technician. / ! / / Having regard to the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the BoarG rinds that the Union did not meet the onus on it to establish that Mr. Kapp, classified as Technician B, was performing autles of a full time Teaching Master, and therefore that his position snoul~ De included in the academic bargaining unit. The Board finds that the CoLLege correctly classified the employee as a Technician ~ wn~ch is a position in the Supoprt ~a~E ~argaining Unit. accordingly, it is the Board's awara ~nat the grievance is aismissed. OaT~u AT OAKVILLE, THIS [~ DAY OF NUV~o~, 1989. HO%~ARD D. D~U~N - ~MAIR~AN J.D. MC?IANUb, UNION NO[.II~IEE JANET~.SLONE-TAYLO~, ~uLLEGE NOMINEE