HomeMy WebLinkAboutKilloran 94-12-19L.R. Jones B.A.Sc. P. Eng.
4 Wright Hargreaves Ave.
Kirkland Lake, Ontario
P2N lB2
Telephone 705 567-423]_
December 19, 1994
Mr. R.J. Gervais Mr. L Lemieux
President President Local 653
Northern College Northern College
Dr. G.N. Killoran Mr. G. Chalifoux
Professor Dean
Northern College Northern College
I enclosed my award for the workload arbitration for Dr. G.N.
Killoran's complaints numbered 94-4, 94-5, 94-6, 94-7, and 94-8.
The hearing was held on Tuesday December 13, 1994 at the Porcupine
Campus.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.
Yours since/r~
L.R. Jo~e~ ....
Workload Resolution Arbitrator
WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATION
RE: GoN. Killoran complaints listed as follows:
Complaint No. SWF No. Period Covered
94-4 4.01 Sept.6, 1994 - Sept.9, 1994
94-5 5.01 Sept.12,1994 - Sept.16,1994
94-6 6o01 Sept.19,1994 - Nov. 11,1994
94-7 7.01 Nov. 14,1994 - Nov. 25,1994
94-8 8.01 Nov. 28,1994 - Jan. 13,1995
Date of Hearing: December 13,1994
Location: Porcupine Campus
Present: G.N.Killoran Professor
G. Chalifoux Dean
L.R.Jones Workload Resolution Arbitrator
INTRODUCTION
These complaints arise from five Standard Workload Forms (SWFs)
which collectively document Dr. Killoran's teaching assignment for
the period September 6,1994 to January 13,1995. They were issued by
Dean Chalifoux on September 8,1994 to supersede three SWFs prepared
in May for the period September 6,1994 to December 23,1994.Dean
Chalifoux advised Dr. Killoran verbally on the morning of
September 6 that his teaching assignment was being amended. The new
SWFs were issued on September 8.
The change in teaching assignment was prompted by Kidd Creek Mine's
decision to postpone by two weeks the starting date of courses for
their employees that Dr. Killoran had been scheduled to teach° Dean
Chalifoux was notified of this change by Mr. Kent of Kidd Creek on
Friday September 2.
Dr. Killoran argues that this change was predictable and should
have been foreseen, that these were new SWFs issued without prior
discussion, and therefore they are invalid and should be withdrawn.
Dean Chalifoux contends that the changed circumstances required him
to amend Dr. Killoran's assignment as provided for in Article
11.02 A l(b) of the Collective Agreement.
Dr. Killoran goes on to state in each of his complaints that if the
SWF is not considered invalid and withdrawn, he is in disagreement
with respect to each SWF and requests that errors be corrected and
any resulting overtime be paid as per Article 11.01 J 2.
(2)
THE HEARING
I began the hearing by asking if the documents submitted to me by
Dr. Killoran could be considered the documents to be provided by
the College and Union Local in accordance with Article 11.02 F 4.
Upon examining the papers, Dean Chalifoux informed us that he had
been advised that this hearing was to deal with an entirely
different workload complaint. He reported that his information had
come from Mr. Bryan of the Human Resources who in turn had received
the information from Dr. Killoran. Dr. Killoran confirmed that Mr.
Bryan had called him, but he (Dr. Killoran) thought that Mr.
Bryan's inquiry was about a different complaint being submitted to
the Workload Monitoring Group. Dean Chalifoux expressed concern
that he may not be able to respond appropriately to matters arising
in the hearing. Fortunately it is not part of my task to resolve
this incredible breakdown in communications.
Dr. Killoran assured us that the documents were the same as those
he had provided to the Workload Monitoring Group. After a short
delay to allow Dean Chalifoux to copy and review the submission, I
proceeded with the hearing, but not without some degree of
trepidation brought on by the communications fiasco.
In order to develop a context in which to hear the complaints, I
inquired about events leading up to the preparation of the SWFs in
question. In the course of these discussions Dr. Killoran revealed
that he had disagreed with the workload on the SWFs that these
replace, and had referred complaints (numbered 94-1, 94-2 and 94-3)
to another Workload Resolution Arbitrator, Mr. Dennis Hakola, for
resolution.
Following these discussions I heard Dr. Killoran's and Dean
Chalifoux's arguments regarding each item in each complaint.
RESOLUTIONS
In setting out to resolve the issues it quickly became apparent
that it was possible for me to make an award that would turn out to
be in conflict with Mr. Hakola's award regarding the original SWFs.
Because a WRA's award is final and binding, such a situation would
be untenable. I have therefore taken into account the existence of
the complaints being heard by Mr. Hakola and attempted to resolve
the issues before me in a manner that will accommodate his eventual
award.
Each of Dr. Killoran's complaints refers to a specific SWF and is
composed of several "subcomplaints" listed by article(s) of the
Collective Agreement he contends has(have) been violated. Because
many of these are common to more than one complaint I have
organized this award to deal with each item only once and
referenced the complaint numbers and SWF numbers to which each
applies.
(3)
Article: 11.02 A l(a)
Complaint No: 94-4 94-5 94-6 94-7 94-8
SWF No: 4.01 5.01 6.01 7.01 8o01
Complaint: This is a new SWF issued less than six weeks before
SWF period.
Solution The SWF be considered invalid and withdrawn.
Sought:
Resolution: I cannot accept Dr. Killoran's argument that there
was an onus on Dean Chalifoux to foresee Kidd Creek's
postponement of the starting date for the courses to
be taught to their employees. I am satisfied that the
College was faced with changed circumstances and was
justified in amending Dr. Killoran's assignment as
provided for in Article 11.02 A l(b). It follows that
it was logical to issue SWFs to replace the existing
ones. I therefore rule that SWFs numbered 4.01, 5.01,
6.01, and 7.01 are not invalid. SWF 8.01 however,
extends into January 1995, beyond the period of the
original teaching assignment. I direct the College
to revise SWF 8.01 to cover the period November 28,
1994 to December 23,1994 and make any necessary
corrections to SWFs issued to Dr. Killoran for the
Winter Term. I assume that Dr. Killoran's workload
commencing the beginning of January has already been
discussed and SWFs issued in accordance with Article
11.02 A l(a).
(4)
Article: 11.02 A 5
Complaint No: 94-4 94-5
SWF No: 4.01 5.01
Complaint: No timetable was ever issued for this period.
Solution No specific solution was requested.
Sought:
Resolution: At the hearing Dr. Killoran and Dean Chalifoux agreed
that there was a timetable to correspond to the
previous SWFs. The only effect of the changed
assignment would be that Dr. Killoran would not start
the courses for Kidd Creek employees until two weeks
later. Because the existing timetable would show the
schedule and location of the workload hours reported
on the replacement SWFs, I rule %hat there is no
violation of Article 11.02 A 5.
Article: 11.02 A 2
Complaint No: 94-4 94-5
SWF No: 4.01 5.01
Complaint: SWF does not include courses CHE 707 and CHE 708.
Solution Correct the error.
Sought:
Resolution: This complaint is nullified by my ruling on the
validity of the SWFs.
(5)
Article: 11.01 E 3
Complaint No: 94-4 94-5 94-6 94-7 94-8
SWF No: 4.01 5.01 6.01 7.01 8.01
Complaint: Student numbers are wrong in a number of courses.
Solution Correct the errors and pay any resulting overtime as
Sought: per Article 11.01J 2.
Resolution: The Student numbers used were the College's plsnning
estimates as specified by Article 11.01 E 3. That
article goes on to require that those numbers
"... shall be reviewed after the enrolment audit
dates and not later than the completion of the course
or section or, at the request of the teacher,
following the last day for withdrawal of registration
by the student(s), and revised where appropriate."
I direct the College to review the student numbers,
make any necessary revisions in accordance with
11.01 E 3, and pay overtime should any be due to
Dr. Killoran.
Article: 11.01 E 1, E 2
Complaint No: 94-4 94-5 94-6 94-7 94-8
SWF No: 4.01 5.01 6.01 7.01 8.01
Complaint: Evaluation/Feedback factors are wrong.
Solution All errors be corrected and any resulting overtime
Sought: be paid as per Article 11.01 J 2.
Resolution: This matter is being considered in the workload
arbitration being conducted by Mr. Hakola. I direct
that Dr. Ki]loran's SWFs be reviewed and revised, if
necessary, to conform to Mr. Hakola's award. Any
resulting overtime should be paid as per Article
11.01 J 2.
(6)
Article: 11.01 D 1, D 3.
Complaint No: 94-7
SWF No: 7.01
Complaint: Preparation Factors for CHE 705 and CHE 709 are
wrong. They should be "New" at a factor of 1.1.
Solution Make corrections and pay any resulting overtime.
Sought:
Resolution: These courses were treated as new with an evaluation
factor of 1.1 on SWF 8.01. They were aJso classed as
new on SWFs 2.01 and 3.01 (the original SWFs). They
are classed as Established B with a factor of 0.6
only on SWF 7.01. Dean Chalifoux agreed at the
hearing that CHE 705 is new, but CHE 709 had been
taught before and that treating it as new on SWF 8.01
was an error. Subsequent to the hearing he faxed me
a copy of an invoice showing that Dr. Killoran had
taught the course in 1992-93. Dr. Killoran faxed
documentation in support of his argument that the
course had undergone a major revision this semester.
I direct that CHE 705 and CHE 709 be classified as
"New" on SWF 707 and 708 and resulting overtime,
if any, be paid.
(7)
Article: 11.02 F 8
Complaint No: 94-4 94-5 94-6 94-7 94-8
SWF No: 4.01 5.01 6.01 7.01 8.01
Complaint: A WRA award from a previous complaint was not treated
as a final and binding. ( has to do with time allowed
for course outline preparation.)
Solution Attributed hours for complementary functions be
Sought: revised to show 4.75 hours for course outline
preparation.
Resolution: Because this matter is under consideration by
Workload Resolution Arbitrator Mr. Dennis Hakola,
I direct that the results of Mr. Hakola's award be
applied to these SWFs.
Award subi~itted December 19,1994
Workl/ad Resolution Arbitrator