HomeMy WebLinkAboutHannikainen 95-04-28 WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATION
RE: Professor A. Hannikainen's disagreement with Standard Workload
Form 04.01.
Date of Hearing: April 20, 1995
Location: Kirkland Lake Campus
Present: Ao Hannikainen Professor
P. MacLean Acting Dean at the Haileybury
Campus (when the SWFs were issued)
L.R~ Jones Workload Resolution Arbitrator
THE COMPLAINTS
Professor Hanni]<ainen had four complaints about SWF 04.01, which
detailed his workload for the period from February 6~1995 to
May 19,1995. They were:
1. The SWF was late. Article 11.02 A l(b) requires-that a SWF be
received not later than six weeks prior to-the beginning of
the period, excluding holidays and vacations.
20 The preparation factor of 1ol for the course "Report Writing
Ii "did not adequately recognize the" scrambling" he had to
do to " pJ..ck up from the previous teacher "who had taught
" Report Writing I ".
3. The SWF did not adequately reflect extra work he had to do
because the course "Human Resource Management "had a mixture
of Business Administration and Office Administration students.
4. The SWF was not on the " form" prescribed in Appendix i of
the Collective Agreement. It was on the computer generated
report the College uses to prepare most of its SWFs.
ARGUMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS
COMPLAINT NO. !
SWF 04,,01 was signed by Dean MacLean on 95 01 09 and by Professor
Hanni]<ainen on 95 01 12~ the same dates as SWF 03~02, which was
the subject of an earlier arbitration. Because the conditions
surrounding the prepara-tion of 04.01 were identical to those of
03.01, my award is the same. The SWF was late due to extenuating
circumstances and I declare the complaint resolved.
(2)
COMPLAIN]. NO. 2
Professor Hannikainen explained that, although "Report Writing i "
and" Report Writing II "are scheduled as separate courses, one Js
a continuation of the other. They are described on a single course
outline Anticipating a problem, he discussed concern~ about ,"'~,-'~
over with Dean MacLean, who in turn wrote Dean Chalifoux on
95 01 12, as]zing him" to communicate to Mr. Hannikainen what is to
be carried over°" When Professor Hannikainen met the students in
"Report Writing II " they complained about the mid-stream change
of teachers and he faced a lot of hostility. On probing to
determine what the students had done in the first term, he learned
that the whole year's work had been roughly outlined and defined.
but not completed° A major paper, due in the second term, had been
assigned some of the material ~elated-to its preparation }.a¢~ oeen
taught, and students had begun the research. He had to look at
students' notes and books to determine how the course had been set
up and. what the basis of grading was to be~
Dean MacLean agreed with the facts provided by Professor
Hannikaineno He explained that a partial load teacher had been
hired for "Report Writing I "because Professor Hannikainen had a
full load in the Fall Term without itc This was not the case in the
Winter Term and he was assigned " Report Writing II." In Dean
MacLean's view, dealing with the disruptions which result from a
change in teacher is " part of the job " of an experienced
professor°
The fou~-te,~n-~-a= g_e course outline is titled " Report Writing I and
II. " ~Tt shows two course codes, COM310-3 and COM410-2 and ~hh_-~
course duration is given as two semesters. The "Overview " states
that the instructor may add to or rearrange the outline .if it is in
the best interest of the students, based on the scheduling of mid-
term examinations and holidays. The courses are organized in two
"modules," " Report Writing I " consisting of ten units and
"Report Writing II "of six. The" Formal Report," or major paper
referred to by Professor Hannikainen is Unit 3 of Module !I. The
outline also indicates that units 4, 5 and 6 ef Module II, which
deal with oral communications, language structures, and sentence
writing, will be ongoing throughout beth semesters.
It is clear from the design of the course(s) that any teacher
taking over at Module II would need to make a deliberate effort to
become familiar with the progress of the students as a group and as
individuals. While I appreciate the challenge involved~ I believe
it is a task that an experienced professional should expect to face
from time to time. I therefore conclude that the preparation factor
of 1~1 is appropriate.
(3)
COMPLAINT NO. 3
Professor Hannikainen stated that preliminary discussions regarding
his SWF did not indicate that Office Administration students would
be mixed with Business Administration students in" Human Resource
Management." He expressed his concerns about the different
backgrounds of the students to Dean MacLean who, in the memo to
Dean Chalifoux referred to earlier, confirmed that there were no
prerequisites for the course. During the first week of the course
the Office Administration students asked Professor Hannikainen
" to go easy with them " because they were having troubles
abso~,~hing the material as quickly as the Business students, who
were familiar with some of the concepts from a previous course.
Dean MacLean argued th. at because this was a general education
course with no prerequisites, it was not unreasonable ho mix the
two groups~
A review of the course outline shows that it was prepared, by
Professor Hannikainen in January 1994 and approved by Dean Carlyle~
It clearly states that there are no prerequisites. The objectives
of the course are" To provide the student with the basic knowledge
of supervision, personnel management and labour-management
relations." In my judgement the content of the course is relevant
to anyone who works in an organization and should not. be beyond the
ability or interest of an Office Administration student° I am aware
ef the problems involved in teaching any course where one segment
of the class has a better background than another. It is not
surprising to find this in a course where there are no
prerequisites. It. ever} occurs in courses where there are. I view
dealing with 'this as a normal part of the professor's role and
therefore rule that the preparation factor of 0.6 is correct.
COMPLAINT NO. 4
This complaint is identical to one dealt with in the arbitration
regarding SWF 03~02. The same resolution applies to SWF 04~02.
(I understand that a replacement SWF has already been issued on the
" form ").
Award submitted April 28, 1995
N ~ones n Arbitrator