HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 93-05-12 ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
- and -
GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE
.~Union Grievance - OPSEU #92F290
Before: M. G' Mitchnick - Chairman
Sherril Murray - UnionNominee
George Metcalfe - Employer Nominee
Appearances:
For the Union: A. Ryder, Counsel
Tom Tomassi
For the Employer: D.K. Gray, Counsel
C. Smith
Hearing held in Toronto on January 27, 1993.
AWARD
This is a Union grieVance claiming that the persons
employed in the College's "Deaf Futures" program are improperly
classified as "counsellors", rather than as teachers or
"professors". As will be noted, either way the parties are in
agreement here that the persons in question are properly treated
as falling within the academic bargaining unit, and under that
collective agreement the salary scale for both classifications is
the same. Thus the only issue underlying the grievance is the
application of Article 4, the academic agreement's "workload',
provisions, which apply to professors, but not to counsellors.
"Deaf Futures" is a program that has been developed
with the support and joint sponsorship of the Bank of Montreal to
assist unemployed, and indeed apparently unemployable,
individuals who are deaf or severely hard of hearing, to acquire
and maintain productive employment in the work force. It focuses
on the opportunity Which computerization provides to these
individuals to perform clerical or administrative job'duties, and
is described in the brochure which advertises it as "a computer
and life skills program". Currently a 36-week program, going to
40 weeks, the curriculum is set out in the brochure as follows:
THE CURRICULUM
The curriculum has been designed to prepare students for
entry-level positions in the business world.
Subjects are:
- 2 -
Life Skills, including financial, time and stress
management; assertiveness training; family and work
responsibilitles;~personal attitude and work
habits; hearing culture interaCtion and telephone
etiquette and other subjects of student interest.
Job Skills, including team work, business etiquett'e,
supervision, dealing with criticism,
discrimination, employment standards act and human
rights legislation.
o English
o Work Placement
o Introduction to Computers
o Introduction to Word Perfect
o Introduction to Lotus 1-2-3
o Introduction to DBase
o Introduction to Computer Skills Upgrading
o Introduction to Mathematics
The two staff persons who present the program do so wholly in
American Sign Language, assisted by a staff interpreter. One'of
the staff persons attended at the hearing, and he himself is
deaf.
The Union called no witnesses from its own side, but
rather elected to call as the sole witness in the case the
Chairperson of the Educational Access Services Department,
Catherine Smith, who attended the hearing on behalf of the
College. Ms. Smith testified that while the program certainly is
designed to upgrade or polish the students' "hard" skills in the
subject areas set out, in order to give them the "tools" to do
the job, the greater emphasis for this particular client group is
on developing or improving the "soft" skills necessary to keep a
job, for example, speaking courteously to one's boss, recognizing
the importance of good time-keeping and proper dress, and
learning to handle diScrimination in the workplace. 'Ms. Smith
explained that many of the people in this group suffer from a .
sense of complete "disempowerment", being the feeling that no
matter what they do, no one will want to hire them anyway, and
that a key goal of the program is to help them to overcome that
feeling, and develop both a sense of power and of self-esteem.
As well, the program through the counsellors attempts to help the
students identify individual behavioural or attitudinal
impediments to learning, such as a low frustration level, or
hostility, and where appropriate, to help the student come to
grips with the underlying causes of such behaviour. Ms. Smith
testified that there may be any number of "counselling"
techniquesemployed, ranging from group role-playing, to one-on-
one discussion of a Problem between the instructor and the
student, and that this is the main function of the staff persons
involved in the delivery of the program. The "academic"
subjects, on the other hand, are all handled by way of self-
teaching computer tutorials in the program's lab, and each
student has his or her own desk and computer. The student
chooses which program he or she wishes to call up and work on on
a given day, while the staff person is there to circulate and
provide assistance where needed, which often is a matter of
providing through sign langUage an explanation of the
instructions in the tutorial. Beyond.that, the students simply
proceed at their own pace with the subjects of their choosing,
and get as far as the 36 weeks in the course will permit. There
- 4 -
is no marking or testing, and no set body of data that either the
counsellor or the student is expected to cover.
The program is divided into alternating periods on and
off the campus. Initially there is a 12-14 week period on
campus, where the students begin their exposure to all aspects of
the program, including the development of both the hard and soft
skills. The bulk of the "teaching" in the program, Ms. Smith
notes, is done in this period, although with the emphasis once
again being nonetheless on "counselling". The student then has a
six-week placement in employment,.putting his or her skills into
practice. The identification of placement opportunities is
largely handled by the Program Manager, but the counsellor may
visit the work site while the placement is ongoing to assist in
orientatioD, or to make sure that the job-exposure.that was
Promised by the employer is in fact being provided. Or the
counsellor may simply use this period as a time for taking his or
her own vacation. Ms. Smith testified that there is no teaching
whatever done by the College staff person during this period.
The employer's workplace supervisor does, however, provide a
written performance appraisal on the placement, and this is used
by the staff person and the student together as a basis for
brushing up on identified deficiencies in either hard or soft
skills during the next six-week period spent on campus.
Throughout the process the emphasis, Ms. Smith noted once again,
however, is on self-evaluation.by the student, in terms of the
students' own sense of the kind of progress they are making, and
-- '5 --
the areas they feel they require further help with. Following
the six weeks on campus there is a further slx-week placement,
and then a final 4 (or 6) week brush-up period on campus at the
end, the emphasis of which once again will be determined by the
student on the basis of what he or she perceives as the most
pressing needs. Or the student may choose to spend the bulk of
that last period receiving assistance with respect to preparing a
resume and job-searching. The evidence also is that these
computer tutorial packages are used as teaching aids in at least
two other courses of study at the College where "professors". are
employed, but in neither.of these do they form the whole body of
the course information that is being taught, nor is it clear in
the one case what category of staff person is even involved when
the students are Using them.
Both parties filed with the board a number of arbitral
awards, and particularly those dealing with the prOper
characterization of individuals involVed in "career" training,
field placement, and/or field supervision. All of those cases
dealt, however, with whether the persons in question fell
properly within the "support staff"-bargaining unit or the
"academic" bargaining unit, and in each case the characterization
of the College as "support staff" was in fact upheld. See with
respect to Georgian College the award of D. D. Carter dated
October 17, 1990, and with respect to Fanshawe College in
particular the awards of Gail Brent dated June 18, 1991, and of
- 6 -
J. W. Samuels dated December 23, 1988, and as well of D. H. Kates
dated December 4, 1987.
Here, of course, the College on its own has treated
(and paid) these individuals as falling within the academic unit,
and the only question, for work-attribution purposes, is that of
a "teacher" versus a "counsellor". The nub of the problem, as
Mr. Ryder has aptly identified, is that in a sense it can be said
that all "teaching" involVes some "counselling'', and all
"counselling" involves some "teaching". Indeed, when one peruses
the definition of what is now termed a "professor" in the
Classification Plan attached to this collective agreement, it
would not be impossible to find that the ~staff persons in
question could fall within it:
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.
- 7 -
,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.
That conclusion becomes less compelling, however, when one also
looks at the definition specifically provided for the position of
,,Counsellor'' within this unit:
CLASS DEFINITION
COUNSELLOR
A coUnsellor is responsible for assisting students and
potential students to function effectivelY as learners
and as individuals by helping them understand, prevent
or overcome personal, social or educational problems
that may hinder learning or-their ability to cope with
everyday living. The Counsellor's duties include:
a) Developing and maintaining appropriate counselling
programs.
- 8 -
b) Interviewing individuals, by appointment, to
explore personal or sOcial difficulties or
vocational/educational decision making, including:
' referring students as appropriate to proper
professional help
- facilitating discussion/dialogue between
students, faculty and administration;
- participating in pre-admission interviewing and
testing as required.
c) Group counselling as a non-instructional activity.
d) Testing and evaluation of individuals to assist
them in their personal, educational/vocational
.development.
e) Assisting administration, faculty and staff, in a
consultative role in identifying student prOblems,
dealing with student problems, and relationship
problems among students.
f) Providing educational/vocational~information to
students or directing them to available sources.
g) ParticiPating in the orientation of new students to
the college.
h) Teaching as assigned.
In addition, the Counsellor may, from time to time, be
called upon to contribute to other areas ancillary to
the counsellor's role, such as student recruitment and
selection, student employment, liaison with community
service programs and agencies, professional development
and control of supplies and equipment.
The question really is one of "best fit", and that latter
definition, it seems to us, comes considerably closer to
describing what the evidence indicates these staff persons are
actually.called upon to do -- particularly when the "Counsellor"
definition itself includes the clear expectation of "Teaching as
assigned". Indeed, as the College points out, Article 11.04 C of·
the cOllective agreement expressly contemplates such an overlap
in function, and makes provision for it as follows:
- 9 -
11.04 C Where counsellors and Librarians are assigned
teaching responsibilities the Colleges will take into
consideration appropriate preparation and evaluation
factors when assigning the Counsellors' and Librarians'
workload.
As Professor Carter put it in the Georgian Colleqe case, supra,
at pages 4-5 (and after noting that "counselling" was a "primary
responsibility" of the then support-staff position at issue):
In this case there is no dispute that the issue
before the board is whether the core functions of the
Co-operative Education Consultants overlap those of
Teaching Masters or Counsellors to such an extent as to
bring them within the academic bargaining unit. This
question is essentially one of fact that requires a
comparison of the position at issue with those that do
fall within the bargaining unit. While it is difficult
to make'this comparison with exact precision, one must
ultimately determine whether the larger part of the
disputed job corresponds to the core functions of a
bargaining unit position.
In making that comparison, we agree with Mr. Ryder that it should
be borne in mind that the subject matters encompassed within the
CO~,~unity Colleges' "academic" programs are constantly being
expanded to'meet the vocational needs of the community. On the
other hand, particularly when dealing with the overlapping
disciplines of "teaching" and "counselling" within the academic
bargaining unit,~ the focus of Professor Carter on "core
functions" becomes all the more apt. In the present case, in
other words, it seems to us that the question one has to ask is
whether the principal responsibility of the staff person is on
the.imparting of the so-called "hard" skills that the students
- 10 -
will use to perform a job in the workplace, or is it on the
elimination of learning impediments and the enhancement of "soft"
skills that will be necessary to permit them to acquire and
maintain such a job? On the evidence we find it is the latter,
and that the staff persons involved are far more involved in
"counselling", albeit in a primarily academic setting, than they
are in "teaching" a defined course of study, to which the
standard work-attribution rules of Article 4 .would logically
apply. Where there is, as here,.some teaching involved as part
of the counselling format as well, the staff persons do, as
pointed out, haVe recourse under Article 11.04 C, and presumably
that recourse continues to be available to the individual staff
persons affected here.
This grievance must accordingly be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto'this 12th day of May, 1993.
"Sherril Murray"
I CONCUR:
UNION NOMINEE
"George Metcalfe"
I CONCUR:
EMPLOYER NOMINEE
GRIEVANCE AWARD
Headnote 92A581
OPSEU Loc.
OPSEU, Local 562 (Union) and Humber College
Award dated May 31, 1993 (Schiff)
Grievance Upheld in Part
Other: Article 8.15 - Reporting
The Union grieved that the 'College had violated Article 8.15(b) of the collective agreement
by failing to report the hirings and terminations of sessional and part-time personnel
teaching the College's Futures, Ontario Basic Skills ("OBS") and Trainers courses.. Article
8.15(b) provides:
During the last week of September, January and May the college shall notify
the Local President of all personnel covered by the Agreement hired or
terminated since the last notification, together with the classification, location
and Division or Department concerned. At such times, the College shall also
include notification of all hiring of personnel assigned to teach credit courses
including, in particular, sessional appointments.
The Board rejected the Union's argument that the words "all personnel covered by the
Agreement" should be interpreted to mean all personnel addressed by the Agreement,
including sessional and part-time employees. The Board held rather that, under Article 8.15,
the College was obligated to file reports only about bargaining unit employees, or in other
words, full-time and partial load employees.
The Board accepted the Union's alternative argument that the words "credit course" in
Article 8.15(b) should be interpreted broadly to mean any course the College offers for
which the College gives credit towards its diploma or certificate of completion, whether or
not the course is formally a component of an approved program. Under this definition, the
Board found that the College was obliged to file reports regarding bargaining unit employees
in its OBS program.
MaureenWebb