Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 90-05-09 L/lO BETWEEN: FANSHAWE COLLEGE (Hereinafter referred to as the College) ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION (Hereinafter referred to as the Union) AND IN THE MATTER OF A~UNION POLICY CRIEVANCE (OPSEU FILE 87Z12) BOARD OF ARBITRATION: Call Brent R. J. O'Connor, College Nominee Ed Seymour, Union Nominee APPEARANCES: FOR THE COLLECE: C.C. Riggs, Counsel R. E. Cares D. L. Busche FOR THE UNION: Pamela A. Chapman, Counsel Gary Fordyce Hearings held in London, 0ntario on October 12, 1988 and March 9, 1990. DECISION The grievance before us (Ex. 1), a Union grievance dated September 14, 1987, alleges that the College violated the collective agreement by using a member of the support staff, Terry Vinet, as a full-time Teaching Master. The Union has asked that the College recognize Mr. Vinet as a member of the academic bargaining unit. The Union also represents support staff employees of the College, who are in a separate bargaining unit. Notice was given to a representative of that bargaining unit, who attended the first day of hearing as an observer and advised the board that he did not wish to take part in the hearing on any other basis. There were no objections raised concerning 2 arbitrability or jurisdiction. Due to a series of events beyond everyone's control, dates set for the continuation of this hearing had to be cancelled and there has been an unusually long period between the two hearing dates. It is difficult to assess the effect which this delay has had on everyone's ability to deal with the evidence presented in this case, and it is with that caveat that we proceed to set out our understanding of the facts lat perhaps greater length than we normally do). The allegation concerns activities in the Machine Shop at the College's St. Thomas Adult Education Centre. That shop, which is about half the size of a football field, contains milling machines, lathes, and various other pieces of related equipment which would cost somewhere around $1,000,000.00 to replace. Mr. Vinet began his employment with the College in August, 1955 as a Technician B in the Machine Shop. The job description for that position (Ex. 2) contains the following information: A. POSITION SUMMARY Under general supervision of the Principal, Adult Education Campus, responsible for the provision of technical assistance to trainees and faculty in the Machine Shop. B. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Initiate and maintains ongoing shop safety and housekeeping practices at all times. Appropriate % of Time Annually 10% 2. Sets up machine tools and attachments for various work projects which are required to comply with Ministry guidelines for the Machine Shop course. Appropriate % of Time Annually 15% 3. Services and repairs all standard machine tools, such as: milling turning, grinding and milling machine. Performs preventa- tire maintenance and repairs on all mechanical, hydraulic and electrical machines. Appropriate % of Time Annually 10% 4. Diagnoses machine tool failures and repairs promptly according to manufacturer's specifications. Appropriate % of Time Annually 5% 5. Responsible for all tool crib procedures by initiating purchase requisitions for machine parts, equipment and consumables. Issues materials and proper tooling as required for student projects. Appropriate % of Time Annually 20% 6. Assists students with projects and problems on all machines. Takes attendance when instructor not available. Appropriate % of Time Annually 10% 7. Checks student projects and signs off task sheet. Appropriate % of Time Annually 2% 8. Inspects machines and setups before students commence projects. Appropriate % of Time Annually 3% 9. Inspects all instruments at beginning and end of shift for loss or damage. Distributes all books in accordance to modules required and ensures they are returned at the end of course. Appropriate % of Time Annually 4% 10. Provides orientation for new students in shop procedure safety. Appropriate % of Time Annually 4% 11. Installs new or used machinery according to manufacturing specifications. Appropriate % of Time Annually 2% 12. Monitors student progress in operating C.N.C. milling machine and lathe. Appropriate % of Time Annually 15% Effective September 1, 1987 Mr. Vinet was reclassified as a Technologist 4 B, and the above job description was replaced by one (Ex. 3) which outlined the following position summary and duties: A. POSITION SUMMARY Under general supervision of the Principal, Adult Education Centre, to provide leadership in the overall planning, implementation, and co-ordination of systems in the Machine Shop in order to provide continuity due to the many different instructors using the shop. B. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Plans, directs and organizes the systems of machine and tool maintenance, purchasing of equipment and supplies, shop safety and housekeeping, tool crib security and inventory. Approximate % of Time Annually 20% 2. Schedules and supervises the work of a full-time Technician B who performs required maintenance, inventory control, and assists students in projects, and other assigned duties. Approximate % of Time Annually 15% 3. Has special responsibility for planning and implementing computerization of student records and for demonstrations of processes used in Computerized Numeric Control equipment, machine shop computers and use of computer aided design software. Approximate % of Time Annually 20% 4. Demonstrates use of machine operations to students at request of instructors on an unscheduled basis and assists students with projects and problems on all machines. Works with instructors to co-ordinate scheduling of machines and students to ensure ap- propriate access to machines and to make sure students progress through their course modules on schedule only. Approximate % of Time Annually 20% 5. Is responsible to the Principal for providing the expertise required to plan for new equipment purchases. This requires a regular liaison with suppliers of equipment software, etc., and an ongoing updating of knowledge in these areas. Checks the prepara- tion of Purchase Requisitions by the Technician. Advises Principal on long range planning of equipment needs for programs, both for Machine Shop as well as for programs such as WITT, 0RS, etc., which operate from separate shops. Approximate % of Time Annually 10% 5 6. Provides an important link to co-ordinate shop use amongst the various faculty members using the Machine Shop. Acts as a liaison between a.m., afternoon and evening shift instructors all using the shop and equipment, communicates and supervises re systems and procedures. Approximate % of Time Annually 15% Mr. Vinet, a graduate of the College's Manufacturing Engineering Technol- ogy program, took a one year course at Humber College to receive his tech- nician papers in programming mechanical control, and has taken software and computer courses on a part-time basis. In addition, he has worked in various settings including his own machine shop. In 1985, when Mr. Vinet's employment commenced, there were two courses scheduled in the Machine Shop: Il) the 48 week General Machinist course, and (2) the 8 week module for the Industrial Maintenance Mechanic (IMM) course. At that time there were three Teaching Masters involved in those courses. The courses were and are continuous intake courses, so that students would enter at different times and be working at different levels. Jerry Flannigan was the IMM instructor and was in the shop from 7:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.; John Ambrose was the General Machinist instructor and was in the shop from 12:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and Malcolm Thomas taught Computer Numeric Control (CNC) and was in the shop during holidays and on non-contact days. Mr. Vinet was the only person classified as a Technician and he worked from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There was also a night school course using the shop, taught by various people. Between August 1985 and September 1987 various things occurred which affected the shop. The afternoon and morning classes in the Machine Shop were amalgamated. There were an average of 20 students in the shop in the 6 mornings then. Mr. Vinet's hours became 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Around September 1987 the College commenced a tool and die course which used the shop in the afternoons. There were two Teaching Masters who staffed the tool and die program, one of whom was in the shop, and one of whom covered theory. This new program resulted in roughly 15 to 18 students being present in the shop in the afternoons. Because of the increased numbers using the shop the College hired a Technician in October 1987, and Mr. Vinet became a Technologist B effective September 1, 1987. Mr. Thomas became the Machine Shop Co-Ordinator and continued his usual teaching. The change had been discussed with Mr. Vinet for about a year before it occurred. Both Mr. Vinet and Ms. Gates, then Principal at St. Thomas, agreed that given the equipment's greater use someone was needed to oversee it during its 'entire time of use. Mr. Vinet acknowledged that his job was changed to take care of this responsibility. There was also a need to give someone the responsibility of planning and purchasing new equipment. He also agreed that there was considerable concern that he develop and put in place systems which would lead to a more efficient operation of the shop. He said that the development of those systems took up a considerable amount of his time. Mr. Thomas testified that he understood from Ms. Gates that as a result of the reclassification Mr. Vinet could have more contact with the students, so he relied on Mr. Vinet to have this contact. He also indicated that he understood that the technician could make sure that the students were operating safely, but could not show them how to do anything. In October or November 1987 one of the Teaching Masters in the morning program went on LTD and was not replaced. Instead, the remaining Teaching 7 Master became full-time (by this time it was Mike Able) and covered both the General Machinist and IMM students in the shop. 0ccasionally, Mr. Thomas or another Teaching Master would also cover the shop on Mr. Able's non-contact days. The staffing of the tool and die course remained the same. Whenever there are students scheduled to be in the shop there is a Teaching Master scheduled to be there. The IMM and General Machinist courses are set up so that there are various modules and projects for the student to complete. The modules contain information and set out the basic requirements for setting up and operating. The projects are practical applications of the knowledge imparted in the module. The modules deal with different pieces of equipment and follow in a logical progression from the simple to the complex. They provide the students with references, and also contain questions for the student to complete. After completing the module the student uses the equipment covered in it. The things covered in the written material are not really covered in a classroom. This will be elaborated on more later in this decision. The projects are standard and are done all over the province. There is a project for each machine in each module, and there are projects which may be done on more than one machine. In relation to the Technician job description [Ex. 2) under which he worked until September 1987, Mr. Vinet appeared to agree with the accuracy of the listed duties and responsibilities, and with the times listed for each one, with the following exceptions. Regarding duty number 3, he said that he thOught 20% was a more reasonable approximation of the time spent. Regarding duty number 6, he said that he thought that he spent about 25% of his time doing this, and that it could involve anything from pressing a reset button to 8 showing the student how to set up an attachment. He said that the students would ask him for help, and that such inquiries were an informal thing on the shop floor. Mr. Vinet said that sometimes a student would go to a Teaching Master and ask to get started on a machine, and the Teaching Master might ask him to get the student started on the machine. He also said that students might ask him for help in the course of a project. M~. Vinet also estimated that duty number 7 took approximately 10% of his time. He said that the students had task sheets, and he would check off that the student had demonstrated the ability to do the task. He said that this was fo~ safety reasons. He also said that a student's final project would be seen by the Teaching Master, but if the Teaching Maste~ did not see the student through every step of the p~oject the Teaching Master would ask him how the student had done du~ing the course of ca~rying out the p~ocedure, fo~ example, the nmAber of pa~ts scrapped by the student. In ~elation to duty numbe~ 12, M~. Vinet explained that the CNC module covers a two week period and is taught twice a year. Students ~eceive instruction in theory for two o~ three days and then write thei~ own programs, make a tape, and produce a pa~t. M~. Thomas teaches the theory. M~. Vinet said that after the students had produced the tape he would show them the master on/off switch and the emergency switch, load the tape, show them the basic set up and tooling, show the setting up of program sto~age in memory, show how the tape ~ecorde~ works to put the program in memory, do a test ~un, and if everything was all ~ight the students would put the steel in and make the pa~t. If the student received a "fault" message, M~. Vinet would look at it and point out the fault so that the student could med~e changes. If it were a major problem, M~. Vinet would send the student to ~ewrite the p~ogram and 9 proceed with the next student. The students would be in the shop for about 1 1/2 weeks in this module. Mr. Thomas would come into the shop during this period, and Mr. Vlnet would indicate if there were students who were having problems and needed help from Mr. Thomas. Mr. Thomas elaborated on how this portion was taught. He said that he teaches theory so that the students can produce and prove a tape, and then shows the students the basic set up of the machine. Mr. Thomas also indicated that generally one or two students would get ahead of the others, and they would work on the machine while he took the rest to a classroom. He said that while the one or two were on the machine Mr. Vinet would watch over them and answer any questions they had. If the students were having any problems, Mr. Thomas would attempt to remedy them. If something could be edited easily at the machine, Mr. Vinet would show the student how to do it and then ensure that the student was doing it correctly. Mr. Thomas would have already taught the students how to edit. In relation to the job description for the Technologist B job (Ex. 3), Mr. Vinet agreed with the accuracy of the description, and also had the following comments in relation to the various duties under which they are listed. 1. Plans, directs and organizes the systems of machine and tool maintenance, purchasing of equipment supplies, shop safety and housekeepinG, tool crib security and inventory. He said that as a Technician he just looked after the existing equipment and had no input regarding future plans and the direction in which the shop should move. He also said that he organized maintenance schedules and gave the Technician an outline of what should be done, and he no longer does the 10 maintenance on the equipment to the same extent that he did before. Mr. Vinet indicated that he is now more involved in purchasing and security than he was before, and the Technician has taken over the tool crib. He agreed with the 20% estimate of approximate time spent annually on this function. 2_~. Schedules and supervises the work of a full-time Technician B who performs required maintenance, inventory control, and assists students in projects, and other assigned duties. Mr. Vinet said that he now schedules the order of maintenance for the Technician and leaves instructions for the Technician regarding equipment which needs to be repaired. The Technician now appears to be responsible for much of the day to day maintenance and purchasing, and Mr. Vinet now purchases specialty items and things which the shop never had before. He agreed with the 15% estimate of approximate time spent annually on this function. 3__~. Has special responsibilitv for planning and implementing computerization of student records and for demonstrations of processes used in Computerized Numeric Control equipment, machine shop computers and use of computer aided design software. Mr. Vinet explained that a new room has been built in the shop and computers installed there. He said that he is filing software, setting up tape to interface with the machine shop equipment and ordering supplies for the area. The students take courses in computer literacy, and following those Mr. Vinet shows them how to call up software, the mechanics of getting tape, loading and plotting. Mr. Vinet said that the CNC equipment in the shop now has a computer element which was lacking before, and he believed that he has more responsibility than anyone in the shop regarding the CNC equipment and the computer. The use of computers is increasing. The only Teaching Master 11 who uses that equipment is Mr. Thomas. Mr. Vinet estimated that he spent between 20% and 25% of his time annually on this function. 4. Demonstrates use of machine operations to students at request of instruc- tors on an unscheduled basis and assists students with proiects and problems on all machines. Works with instructors to co-ordinate scheduling of machines and students to ensure appropriate access to machines and to make sure students progress through their course modules on schedule only. In relation to the first sentence, Mr. Vinet said that if a student had an opportunity to get a job in a local industry which has a machine similar to one in the shop, he would be told to show the student how to use the machine. He also explained that because of the continuous intake nature of the course students can be engaged in various tasks, and in order to save time machines are demonstrated to groups of 2 or 3 students. Mr. Vinet said that student demand dictates what to demonstrate. The Teaching Master demonstrates the machines, and if further students need a demonstration at the other side of the shop, he would do it. Mr. Vinet also said that when a student comes into the shop with a project, he might be the first person the student happens to see so the student would ask him what to do. He said that he would tell the student where to get material and where the machine is, and might also go to the tool crib with the student to get tooling. Mr. Vinet said that if a Teaching Master told the student what to do and did not have time to get the tooling set up, the student might be told to see him about it. If the Teaching Master is busy, Mr. Vinet helps the students, otherwise the Teaching Master does it. In relation to the second sentence, Mr. Vinet said that he had cards showing the students' names and start dates and 48 spaces for checking off 12 weekly progress. The cards show what projects the students have completed. Mr. Vinet keeps those records and tells the Teaching Master if any students are falling behind. He also said that there are more students than machines, so that arrangements must be made to give those students with the least time left on their courses priority. Mr. Vinet discusses the situation with the Teaching Master before those arrangements are made, and he said that he would not make such a decision on his own. Mr. Vinet estimated that 30% would be a more accurate estimate of the time spent on this function. 5_~. Is responsible to the Principal for providinq the expertise required to plan for new equipment purchases. This requires a regular liaison with suppliers of equipment software, etc., and an ongoing updating of knowledge in these areas. Checks the preparation of Purchase Requisitions by the Tech- nician. Advises Principal on lonq range planninq of equipment needs for programs, both for Machine Shop as well as for programs such as NITT, ORS, etc., which operate from separate shops. Mr. Vinet indicated that this was a new duty which had been assigned since he became a Technologist. He agreed with the 10% estimate. 6__~. Provides an important link to co-ordinate shop use amongst the various faculty members using the Machine Shop. Acts as a liaison between a.m., afternoon and evening shift instructors all using the shop and equipment, communicates and supervises re systems and procedures. Mr. Vinet said that he has contact with all of the instructors so that he can be aware of what is being used in the shop when. He said that an example of something he might do under this function is giving permission to a student to leave a complicated set up on a machine at the end of the day because he 13 would know that no other class would be coming, in to use the equipment before the student returned. He agreed with the 15% estimate. There is some theory taught to the students. All of this theory is taught by those whom the College currently classifies as Teaching Masters. Mr. Vinet does not teach any theory. It would appear that there is very little scheduled teaching done, and that the Teaching Master "floats" in the shop. Mr. Thomas said that teaching is done as the Teaching Master floats on the shop floor, in that small groups would be formed and instructed in how to set up and cut parts before going on to do the projects. He said that after that the Teaching Master would give assistance to the students on their projects. He said that the beginners demand more time because they have a check sheet and must call him over to see if they have performed each specific operation on the sheet correctly and can proceed to the next level. In terms of the overall operation of the shop, Mr. Vinet explained that the more advanced students just come into the shop and go to work, while the less experienced get demonstrations on the machine and get each item on their lists checked off. Mr. Vinet said that when the modules are updated he shows the Teaching Master who is updating them the information he has received from suppliers so that it can be incorporated into the modules. The last updated was done 1 1/2 years ago, at which time Mr. Vinet also discussed with Mr. Able the lack of balance in the shop because there was too much use of a particular type of machine. There was a discussion of each module, and a discussion of each project. He said that anyone who had anything to do with the course had input into the update. He said if a new machine were acquired for which there was no project, either he or Mr. Able or Mr. Thomas could make up a suitable project. 14 Messrs Able and Thomas are responsible for creating, maintaining, and developing the modules. Because of Mr. Vinet's experience, they will ask him for suggestions and will take those suggestions if they consider them to be good. The students take a test at the end of each module whenever they say they are ready to take it. The tests are given in the resource centre. Mr. Able marks the tests. The students also receive a practical mark based on their shopwork and projects. They are graded on the appearance of the part and how closely it resembles the drawing. Students are constantly handing in projects. Mr. Vinet said that if a Teaching Master has not seen the student making the project, he might be asked how the student performed while making the project. Students are assigned marks for the projects by Mr. Able, and these marks are averaged out with the test. Mr. Vinet is responsible for keeping files of students' progress and marks. The ultimate responsibility for evaluating students rests with those who are currently classified by the College as Teaching Masters. Mr. Thomas indicated that he could and would accept or reject any input he received from Mr. Vinet. As already noted, the replacement value of the equipment in the shop is around $1,000,000.00. The equipment must be kept in high quality running order, and as much repair and maintenance work as possible is done in house. When students use the machines the College wishes to ensure that the machines will be used safely and in a manner which is proper and will minimize the possibility of either breakdown or problems. A great deal of damage can be done to some of the machines in a short period of time, and the potential cost of that damage can be high. Mr. Vinet is held responsible by the College for ensuring that the equipment is maintained in high quality working order, and he is the person who is ultimately responsible to the College for the machinery. He said that his prime dealings with the students occur when the students use the machines; he is responsible for seeing that they use the machines properly, safely and according to procedures. Mr. Vinet testified that he understood that the Principal would hold him responsible for the general running of the machine shop, the physical oper- ation, and especially for the machinery. He said that she would hold the Teaching Masters responsible for the students. He also said that at times there would be some overlap between the two functions. Mr. Thomas indicated that when he has been in the shop at the same time as Mr. Vinet the student contact Mr. Vinet has had has been the same as that of the Teaching Masters. He said that the students tend to ask whoever is close when they have a problem, and they know that he is the Co-ordinator, Mr. Able is the Teaching Master, and Mr. Vinet is the Technologist, and have a very distinct impression of who these people are. The students are not told that they must take their questions or problems to any particular person. Mr. Thomas testified that he considered that he had responsibility for maintaining safety and equipment. He also said that he instructs the students how to operate safely and properly, and considers this to be one of the goals of the course. The primary goal of the course is to produce a student who can go into industry as an apprentice in a related trade and fit successfully into a job. According to Mr. Thomas it is part of the Teaching Master's Job to main- tain contact with local sponsoring agencies, and to do the paperwork connected with that. Mr. Vinet does not have any contact with these agencies. Mr. Thomas does all of that work. 16 Mr. Vinet has been engaged by the College from time to time as a supply teacher to cover for absences. During those periods he was paid as a Teaching Master, and obtained leave of absence from his regular job to do it. Two nights a week he teaches a three hour General Machinist and IMM course at the College. He teaches in the same shop that is used during the day, using the same course materials. There are anywhere from 8 to 15 students in the course, and while he is teaching he gives instruction on the machines, issues tests, grades projects and tests, and keeps the students' records up to date. Both of the courses do the same modules, but the IMM course does not do projects. As a Teaching Master Mr. Vinet has input regarding the curriculum of the evening course. He said that at night the students may not be fluent in English, and this was causing problems, so he suggested that the tests be changed to multiple choice or true/false. This change was made. He said that he made that suggestion to Mr. Able when they were discussing module revi- sions. In the evening there is no Technician present in the shop. The students set up the machines and equipment themselves. The night students, all being from local industries, do not need the same amount of supervision as the day students. Roughly two hours of Mr. Vinet's time is spent actually on the machines, and one hour is spent getting tests for the students and getting new students started. Mr. Vinet is under contract and is paid as a Teaching Master for his work in relation to the night course. It is the Union's principle position that Mr. Vinet should be considered to be a Teaching Master and a member of the academic bargaining unit. It argued that the job descriptions IExs. 2 & 3) and the evidence indicated that 17 he was engaged in activities which should be labelled "teaching". It pointed to duty number 6 on Ex. 2, and to the evidence that it took up 25% of Mr. Vinet's time, and relied on the evidence that Mr. Vinet and the Teaching Masters would assist the students in completing projects, would answer questions, and would take attendance. It also pointed to duty number 7 on Ex. 2, saying that both Mr. Vinet and the Teaching Masters would do this. It also relied on the facts that Mr. Vinet had input into the final grade and that this duty was said to take up about 10% of his time. The Union also said that duties number 9, 10 and 12 on Ex. 2 all involve teaching duties. It pointed out that the second sentence in number 9 indicated that Mr. Vinet would have to determine if modules had been done appropriately and hand out new ones. In relation to number 10 it submitted that the orientation tour for new students and the instruction on safety, along with the act of getting the student started on the first module, was teaching. Concerning number 12 it relied on Mr. Vinet's work in showing the students how to operate the equipment, how to make the part using the tape, and how to deal with fault messages. The Union also submitted that once the Technician was hired in the fall of 1987 Mr. Vinet's duties changed, resulting in even greater student contact and more responsibility being given to him concerning the CNC program. It pointed to duty number 4 on Ex. 3, and submitted that Mr. Vinet has continued to perform the same work assisting students as he had done as a Technician, and that the evidence showed that he could be the only person who had contact with a student completing a particular module. The Union pointed out that this duty accounted for over 20% of Mr. Vinet's time. The Union also relied on duty number 3 in Ex. 3 as being teaching and a carryover of the function 18 Mr. Vinet had performed as a Technician. It also submitted that there has been an increased emphasis on the use of computers in the shop, and that Mr. Vinet has been given a special responsibility in that area because of his expertise. The Union submitted that the evidence disclosed that this took up 20 to 25% of his time. The Union also relied on Mr. Thomas's evidence that as a Technologist Mr. Vinet would have increased contact with the students, and his characterization of that contact as being the same as the Teaching Masters'. It also submitted that when the students are in the shop Mr. Vinet "floats" in the same manner as the Teaching Masters and performs the same functions for the students. It submitted that Mr. Vinet is responsible for the task sheets in the same manner as a Teaching Master and his input is sought in assigning grades for the practical portion of the course. It pointed out that there could be times when this input was essential because he might be the only person who saw the students perform the work. The Union also relied on the evidence concerning Mr. Vinet's input into the curriculum revision and project design as being Teaching Master work. The Union said that the evidence discloses that Mr. Vinet performs several tasks which are critical components of teaching. It said that he passes on to the students information which is required to complete the course, and since the course is about learning to use machines, without Mr. Vinet's input part of the goal of the course would not be met. It further submitted that Mr. Vinet provided the same sort of assistance to the students as a Teaching Master. The Union further submitted that the change that occurred in the shop in the fall of 1987 is important. It said that prior to that there was one Teaching Master in the shop in the morning for the IMM students, and one there 19 in the afternoon for the General Machinist students, along with Mr. Vinet as the Technician and Mt.Thomas, who provided some non-contact day. coverage in the shop. The Union then said that the re-organization combined the IMM and General Machinist students into one session covered by one Teaching Master, and added a Tool and Die program covered by a Teaching Master, with Mr. Thomas performing the Co-ordinator role and also being present in the shop from time to time as before. It said that the addition of the Technologist position to the complement resulted in one fewer Teaching Master being responsible for the courses, and gave Mr. Vinet additional responsibility for teaching students on the shop floor. The Union submitted that the net effect of the change was that Mr. Vinet picked up the teaching responsibility of a Teaching Master. It also pointed to Mr. Vinet's evening teaching, and to the evidence that his tasks in the shop with the students is the same in the day as it is in the evening. The Union relied on the decision in Fanshawe ColleGe and OPSEU (Union Grievance File 86H25), (1987) unreported {Brent), and said that this case fit within the distinctions made there because what is taught in the course is what is taught in the shop. It argued that if tasks in the shop which the Union says are teaching can be done by support staff then the whole area of technical teaching is compromised and reduced to the point where there is no academic component at all. It said that at the extreme it would then be possible to have a course taught in a practical setting under the supervision of support staff who are there to protect the equipment and supervise the space, and who interact with the students in the way Mr. Vinet does, without having a Teaching Master there at all. The Union argued that there is more to teaching than taking responsibility for assigning grades, that the essence of 2O teaching is being the human instrument of instruction, and that the College should recognize that process in the context of technical teaching. It is the College's position that a Teaching Master is someone whose core function is teaching, and that Mr. Vinet is not a teacher in that his core functIQn is not teaching. The 'College pointed out that Mr. Vinet agreed that the functions described in the TechnolOgist job description lex. 3) were accurate, and that the position was created because of the increased use of the shop by different Teaching Masters in different programs. It argued that the theme of co- ordination runs throughout both Exhibit 3 and the evldence. The College submitted that Mr. Vinet's responsibility is primarily for the machinery, and for all aspects of the machinery, including maintenance, budget, etc., and that he reports directly to the Principal. It argued that all of his other responsibility flows from the fact that he has responsibility for the machinery in the shop, and that insofar as that concerns student contact, as the person responsible for the machinery he has to ensure that it is used properly by the students. It pointed out that Mr. Vinet, as distinct from the Teaching Masters, has no responsibility for the students. The College also submitted that job classifications are not watertight compartments and it is usual to find a degree of overlap between classifications as there is here; however, it rejected the idea that Mr. Vinet's relationship with the students, which is both in relation to the machinery in the shop and on an unscheduled basis, brings him squarely within the Teaching Master classifica- tion. The College also relied on the CAAT - J0B EVALUATION GUIDE CHART as it related to Technologists (Ex. 4B), and submitted that the job described in 21 Exhibit 3 falls within the family definition and the criteria for Technologist B in recognizing student contact. It also argued that what is critical in this case is what the College holds someone responsible for, and pointed out that it is significant to consider those aspects of the Teaching Master job for which the College does not hold Mr. Vinet responsible. Those included curriculum, organization of teaching material, teaching, ensuring that the material is successfully completed, monitoring the progress of the students, providing progress reports to funding agencies, and providing the final evaluation of student performance. It argued that there was no possible way in which one could take the functions performed by Mr. Vinet and fit them within the class definition of Teaching Master found in the Classification Plans for Academic Employees (Ex. 51. The College pointed out that the Fanshawe case (supra) relied on by the Union dealt with a Technician, and the Technologist job is recognized as having greater student contact. It argued that a Teaching Master and a Technologist may often be doing the same thing when they are interacting with students, but this sort of overlap in function is not unusual in working situations. The class definition of Teaching Master contained in Ex. 5 is set out below: TEACHING MASTER Under the direction of the senior academic officer of the College or designate, a Teaching Master 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; 22 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 curricultm~ and other consultative committees as requested· In addition, the Teaching Master may from time to time, be called upon to contribute to other areas ancillary to the Teaching Master role, such as student recruitment and selection, time- tabling, facility design, professional development, student employment, and control of supplies and equipment. It would appear that we are caught in the middle of two opposing ideas concerning the appropriate role of support staff personnel in the technical shops. If the Union's argument is taken to its extreme, then it may be that any time any member of the support staff bargaining unit interacted with a student in the shops that person would have to be regarded as being in the academic bargaining unit. On the other hand, if the College's argument is taken to its extreme, then it may be that members of the support staff could man technical shops to the exclusion of academic bargaining unit personnel provided that one could argue that their ultimate responsibility was in relation to the machinery in the shop and they did no scheduled teaching. 23 In the case at hand, there is no doubt that the position summary for the Technologist B job states clearly that the job exists to oversee the shop and to ensure that it meets the needs of the instructional activities of the College. There is no doubt that, when both the job description (Ex. 3) and the evidence are examined, the grievor does interact with students in the course of his work and that interaction takes the form generally of explaining things to them and assisting them with problems as required. However, there is also no doubt from the evidence and the job description that the position encompasses duties which do not involve any interaction with students at all, and which are without a doubt support staff work. Duties 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the job description, all of which were confirmed as accurate, undeniably have nothing at all to do with students or their course work, and these total 60% of the job. In addition, even if for the sake of argument one were to accept that Technologists B should have absolutely no interaction with students at all, there are aspects of the other duties which quite clearly do not involve any such interaction, and which involve things which certainly cannot be argued to be exclusively a function of the academic bargaining unit. For example, in duty 3 the portion of the duty involving the computerization of student records is something which is essentially clerical in nature, even though a computer is utilized. Surely if a teaching master were to tell a member of the support staff what to enter on a student's record, that support staff member would not become a teaching master by following those directions. Also, the second sentence in duty 4 does not involve interaction with students, but does involve scheduling and co-ordinating equipment availability so that the course of instruction can be followed, and that is something which in our view is clearly appropriate work for support staff. In summary, then, 24 if those job duties which are undeniably properly support staff duties are isolated, it can be seen that well over 60% of the incumbent's time is spent doing them, and it can also be seen that they are consistent only with the stated purpose of the job, to see that the shops are adequate to meet the instructional needs of the College, and with work appropriate to the support staff bargaining unit. There is no evidence that the incumbent in Ibis job teaches any theory at all. Whatever theory is taught is taught by those who are classified as Teaching Masters. There is no evidence that the incumbent assigns grades to students. There is evidence that he is asked for input if the Teaching Master considers himself to be unable to judge the student's performance in every aspect of the project; however, the ultimate decision as to whether or not to accept that input and regarding the student's grade is properly that of a Teaching Master, and the incumbent does not make that decision. There is also evidence that his input is sought regarding curriculum changes, but that the decision regarding curriculum is that of a Teaching Master and does not rest with him. It seems only reasonable that a Teaching Master would use someone familiar with the existing and new equipment as a resource to provide advice as to the direction the curriculum should take. In our view, being used as a resource by a Teaching Master because of your expertise in a certain area does not make you a Teaching Master. If, on the other hand, you were expected to design the course as part of your job, then you would be within the definition of a Teaching Master. There is therefore nothing that the incumbent does that fits within the class definition of Teaching Master listed under point (a) of that definition (supra). Further there is nothing that the incumbent does that fits within 25 the class definition of Teaching Master listed under point (c) of the definition (supra). Of all of the items listed under point. {b) of that definition, the only one which the incumbent can be said to do at all to any extent would probably fall within the category of "tutoring and academic counselling of students". ~%ere is no doubt that the incumbent does spend a great deal of his time "floating" around the shop and interacting with students about their work in the same manner that a Teaching Master would help any student having trouble. There is also no doubt that the way that technical teaching is done in this particular shop makes it difficult to differentiate between those whose objects in interacting with the students are to ensure that the students progress through the curriculum and that their knowledge of a subject increases, and those whose objects in interacting with the students are to ensure that the equipment they are responsible for is used properly. However, we must still differentiate between those people based on the core functions or responsibilities of their jobs. We do not consider that the core function of the Technologist B job here can be said to be teaching. All of the evidence before us indicates that the core function of that job involves overseeing the use and acquisition of the equipment for the shop, rather than trying to ensure that the students who take the course learn something. The Fanshawe case cited to us involved someone who was performing the work of a Technician. Unlike this situation, there was no question there that the person was neither qualified to teach the course in question nor was she assigned any duties which required her to answer student questions about course content. Her primary function was to make sure that the computer equipment in the lab was being used properly. One aspect of that job meant 26 that if a student was having trouble with the computer the Technician would show him/her how to use the equipment. It was found that such an action, even though instruction, was not inconsistent with the Technician's job and did not make the Technician a Teaching Master. In this case the incumbent is someone who possesses the qualifications that would be appropriate for a Teaching Master in this field. It is not surprising that the College would employ someone with those qualifications to deal with such sophisticated and expensive machinery. Such qualifications are as appropriate for a Tech- nologist B job as they are for a Teaching Master, and the fact that the incumbent possesses them does not thereby make him a Teaching Master. It is impossible not to be sympathetic with the Union's position to some extent. On the surface this can be made to look like a case where the College has replaced a member of the academic bargaining unit with a member of the support staff bargaining unit. However, when the evidence is examined it is clear to us that, although the Technologist B does some instruction, what he does is not sufficient to place him within the class definition of Teaching Master. It must be remembered that classifications are not watertight compartments, and in any situation there are bound to be some overlapping functions. The mere presence of overlap in and of itself does not mean that there is any improper classification or work assignment. For all of the reasons set out above, the grievance is dismissed. DATED AT LONDON, ONTARIO THIS ~[~ DAY 1990. Gall Brent 27 R. J. O'Connor, College Nominee I concur / dissent ~ $3~-~' 0~-~~, Ed Seymour, Union Nominee FANSHAWE COLLEGE AND ONT~RIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION UNION POLICY GRIEVANCE - OPSEU FILE 87Z12 EDWARD E. SEYMOUR - DISSENT I have read %he Majori%y Award and wi%h respec%, I find I mus% dissen%. While I agree wi%h %he fac%s as ou%lined by %he Majority in its decisionj I disagree with the interpretation given to those facts in dismissing the grievance. Evidence at the hearing revealed fha% Mr. Vinet: assists s%udents,i keeps records on their progress, and informs %he Teaching Mas~er if a studen% is falling behind~ has inpu~ in updating modules, provides informa~ioa received from suppliers so it can be incorporated in%o modules and, has inpu~ on how ~his is %o be done; in co-opera~ion wi%h Abel and Thomasj he devises studen% projec%s for new machinery~ reports on how s~udents perform which Teaching Master often does no~ see, is responsible for keeping files on studen%s' progress and marks~ is held responsible to ensure s~uden%s use machinery properly, safely, an~ in accordance wi~h proper procedures~ contac% he has in shop with s~uden%s is the same as Teaching Mas%ers (Thomas's ~estimony)~ is given special responsibility for increased use of computers in the shop - he has specific exper%ise in this area which others do not have~ contac% with s~udents same as Teaching Mas%er - "f!oa~s" in same manner as a Teaching ~aster and performs ~he same responsibilities in the shop; is responsible for %ask sheets in same manner as a Teaching Master. Inpu~ is sough% in assigning grades for practical portion of the course~ has input in~o curriculum revision and projec% design~ passes information on %o students fha% is required to comple%e %he course. The course is about learning %o operate machines and wi%hour Vine%'s input, part of %he course objectives would not be met~ provides same sor~ of assis%ance to s%uden~s as Teaching acquired addi~iona! teaching responsibilities as a result of ~he re-organization in 1987; conducts evening courses for which he is paid at the Teaching Master's rate. The tasks he performs in the shop during the evening courses are identical to his day-time responsibilities. In its decisionj the Majority minimized the importance of Mr. Vinet's responsibilities. The claim is made that Duties (ex.3) have absolutely nothing to do with students or their course work, and these total 60 percent of Mr. Vinet's current responsibilities. Regarding Duty %1: evidence was clear that part of Mr. Vinet's responsibility was to ensure that the equipment was used properly, safely and in accordance with procedures. The Majority interprets this to mean that Vinet's major responsibility here is to protect the machinery. Surelyj an equally important aspect of this ~ns~ 11 into students~ a responsibility is to ' =i practical appreciation of operating the machinery in a sa=e manner so as protect themselves from injury and to minimize waste - both of which would be important considerations to poten~ia! employers. Duty %2 clearly states that part of the responsibility is to "assist students in projects and other assigned duties" In Duty %3, the Majority placed excessive emphasis on implementing computerization of students' records as "clerical in nature". The Majority ignores Mr. Vinet's testimony that he taught students how to operate the Computerized Numeric Control (CNC) Equipment. He testified that students learned hands-on in the shop. Mr. Vine% does setup and storage in memory. He instructs how the Memory Reader works~ how to retrieve information and, how to make parts. If there were problems, he would take a look and often advise. If there were repeated errors he would get student to rewrite the program. Mr. Vine% is the only person at the College with CNC Training and, this training when considered in conjunction with the duties cited abovej would clearly indicate that the responsibilities outlined in Duty %3 are more than "clerical in nature" t~a~ the second sentence in in its decision~ the Majority claims ~ = Du'ty %4 does not involve interaction with students. The sentence reads: "works with Instructors to co-ordinate scheduling of machines and. students to ensure appropriate access to machines and to make sure students progress through their course modules on schedule only insofar as the shop practicom is concerned." Mr. Vine% testified that he had student cards on which he recorded start dates and marks on a weem_v basis. For modules and projects he makes decisions mutually with Thomas, as to who has access machines. This is done on a p__o_~ty basi= and is mutually agreed to by Teaching Masters and Vine%. Vine% estimated 20-2'5 per cent of his time was spent doing work associated with Item 3 and 30 per cent on work associated with Item %4. This is in accord with testimony by Thomas who clairaed Vinet's teaching responsibilities increased when the organization changes occurred in 1987. The Majority places soma emphasis on the fact that no theory is taught by Vine%; buG, theory is not taught by Abel either. Abel is a Teaching Master. Vinet, like Abel, is depended upon to ensure that the practical aspects of the course are successfully completed. Both the theory and the practical aspects are essential components of course content. The Majority also places undue emphasis on the fact that Vinet's responsibilities include looking after the machinery and not enough on ensuring that the task is performed properly. The Majority recognizes that Mr. Vine% is someone who possesses the qualifications that would be appropriate for a Teaching Master. In doing so however, the Board has failed to go one step further in recognizing that Mr. Vine% has actually performed the functions of a Teaching Master. As stated previously, the Majority estimates that approximately 60 per cent of Mr. Vinet's time is spent in non-teaching functions. It further staZes ghat Duties 1,2,5, and 6 (Ex. 3) have absolutely nothing %o do with students and they minimize the teaching responsibilities outlined in Duties 3 and 4. No evidence was led to contradict Mr. Vinet's estimation that 20-25 per cent of this time was spent performing Duty ~3 and approximately 30 per cent of his time was spent in performing Duty ~4. Items 1 and 2 accounted for 35 per cent of his time and these have time approximations of 20 and 15 per cent respectively. Even if Mr. Vinet spent only half the time allocated for Duties 1 and 2 on teaching responsibilities, that, along with responsibilities associated with Duties 3 and 4, would mean well over 60 per cent of his time is spent on activities that could accurately be described as teaching. This would qualify him to be regarded as a Teaching Mas~er. For the above reasons I would have allowed the grievance. All of which is respectfully submitted by, Edward E. Seymour