Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVan Huyen 90-12-2408-I 1-00 13'~ S8 ID= P.02 " ,'r-.' .: .,, RECEIVEb. :~='" ~ o'~ ~',, ";'~, "' IN TH~ NATT~R OF ~ 'ARBIT~TION .. .: BETW~ EN: : SENECA COLLEGE OF APPLIED 'ARTS ~D T~CHNOLOGY, .. .~: ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNI'ON, ; . : (the "U~ion") : AND IN THE ~ATTER OF THE GRI~V~CES' OF F~NCIS V~ HUYEN BOARD OF ARBITRATION Paula Knopf, Chairman R. J. Callivan, college Nomineo , Brian Switzman,' Union Nominee APPEARANCES For the College C.G. Riggs, Counsel :. W. Boworth. J. Limkiida : ~o~ the On,on ~ean 8a~an~Tne,, CouneeZ Bea~ng ~n ~b~e mat~e~ ~a~ ~e~ on ~eb~ua~y 28 and Octobe~ 29~ ~990 Ln ~o~onto ' 08-11-0~ 13:S8 ID= t~.B3 '! i' AWARD :. This is a disci, pline case. The 6flavor is a Te~ghing[ ~aster at Seneca College and has nine years' seniority. Ho ' teaches Computer Systems. This case involves three :: grievances which arose out si a series of three'events in thai " early part of 1989. We shall deal with each Of the ..' grievances separately. 1. January 31, 1989 - ~arking Of Examinations and ':: Co,duct in the Analysis/Design BC8-3'35 Course ": The Griever taught an Analysis and Design course in : Computer Systems in the fall of 1988. After the release of the marks~ one student launched .an academic appeal setting out a series of complaints against the Griever's teaching and.' organization o£ the course as well as the marking o2 exams. [[.... " As a result of tho complaint, the Dean of the Computer ': ' Studies Division gathered together' a group.of four people. ~ho..'. ;.. were familSar with the subject to' review the student's. : ' complaint and to try .to dete~mine what ought tO be'd6ne. .Tho!'. group looked at the student's final examination and the marks" ' assigned by the Griever. In doing this, they notices that ' the student~' examination booklet contained only a grade .. 'noted on the out~ide without.any indication of the analysi, s a~ to how thc.mark was computed throughout the body of the examination. Since there was no indication on the face of ... the examination paper as to how the mark had been calculated,' the Appeal Committee had concern as to whether the grade .had !.. '~. been calculated in an entirely subjective manner or.not. The[. Committee also felt d£fficulty defending agrade, whun..they could not see the basis on which the mark had been determined. Upon further investigation, th~ Committee r~alized that all the marks.on the examina~ion pa~or$ were recorded on the ~ront without .any i.ndicat~o~ of. :=. .i~ analysi~ throughout the exami'nation paper. 'Another. th~ng' :~ that raised concern with the Committee was t~at only five ID: different marks were used, namely, 30, 40, 50, G0 and 70. There were no odd numbers and all were multiples Of ten. This raised susptolons tn tho Co~tteo~s mind. Tho D~a~ wrote to the Griever saying: I am le~t to conclude that.~hes'o final exams, which represent the work o£ 37 students, were graded in a :. highly subjective ~aehion without proper attention ..-' to the detail of each answer. The mark recorded. for each final was then the'result of .your "gut" .~' : : reaction rather than the result of detailed , marking. You are hereby adm~n'~shed for this behaviour and directed to re'mark al'l 37 el the '" BCS-33S exams in a proper.fashion that will show how the grades were developed. The Griever did re-mark the examinations as required.:''' In his testimony the Griever explained that he had used detailed' analysis and answer scheme when he originally marked."' the oxaminat~on.. He had done the 'calculations and the ' ,stations on a scrap piece 0~ ·paper. as ho was ma~k~'ng the :~.. papers and then simply relco=d.ed the final results o~ 'the 'mark on the front page of the Oxaminationlforms. He had never ..: been instr~cted to do otherwise and had no idea that any d£fferent system was expected. It was out o~ the ordinary .. ~or h£m to mark ~n multiples of t~n as he did in ~hie case. 'HOwever, the Griever explained that he did ed in ,order·to : ' benefit the students by giving them hi~her marks because he rounded each final score up to the next highest multiple o.f ten In oth~r words, if someone achieved a mark of 41, the Griever would have a~signed a final grade of $0 for the In any event, the Griever did re-mark the ;: examinations as requested. They were then reviewed' by the Department. There were no signi~icant di~ferences between tho final grades assigned by the Griever in the original and in the re-marked set o£ examinations. Further, 'the Co'11ege has no quarrel with the fin.~llgrades that the Offeror ultimately awarded. '!~. ~.~ '" 0~-11-00 ID= The College also had other complaints about the way the Gcisvor has taught this course, These complaints related " to issues raised in tho' student appeal about the Grievo~'s inst~uct~ons to tho students prior to the final examination, :.. tho way the Griever conducted assignments and the ~ay th~ Grievo~ announced m~d-te~m marks ~o the s~uden~s. However, - ,i the main thrust o£ the case as i~.~se presented to th~s Boa~d :' o~ ~b£~atton ~as tha~ the d~sc~p~ne si th~ w~ltt~n ~a~n~.~g ... to the Griever was ~usti~i®d p~ineipallF upon.the' ~a~ he had macked the ~ina~ examination. ~he College clea~ly took this advised him that ~any ~urther incidents of a similar nature may result i'n ~urthsr discipline up to and including A. Decision on the Ha=k~.n¢3 'Grievance. The ev:Ldence of ~ha College ~s clear and conv~ncing ~hab bho College ~.b~a~ly had ample reason .abou~ bbc wa~ ~he O=~evo= had marked in this course. The mo=e ~a. ct that all. the ~radea camo out to multiples of ton raised suspicions. These suspicions wore understandably heightened when the ApDeals Co~ittee reviewod the examina~oa booklets and ~ound. mo ~nd~cation o~ any a,alysis, on the face o~ the booklots. that the G=iovor had not applied the careful analysis examination questions to which the students are ont~'~led. Furthe=, the fac~ tha~ the bas~s of recorde~ on tho examination made Comm~tto~ to make any decisions appeal. Heace, we f~,d no ~ault ~orious ~nvestigation into this matter and looking.very ':~' :~., Critibally' a2 the Orievor's conduct. ~[' , ID= However, nothing in the evidence establishes that th~ '.' Crievor or any faculty were ever instructed that it was ~ requirement to record tho analysis of ~he assignment of marks .. on the examination papers themselves, While it may make common sense, it w~s not a requirement that was ever made known to the Griever or that he could be disciplined ~or p~.r ": ~e. Further, even though one Gould be suspic~ous about :.:. marking in te~ms of multiples of ten., the re-marking by the G~ievo~ and tho subsequent review b2 the Appeals .Commit~oa indicated that none o~ the marks given bM the. Griever wore inappropriate or out o~ line,' Thus, there was no ~arm done .'. to the students or to the academic process, The o~hor matters raised in ~he letter of.discipline were clearl2 not ~hs main reason why tho discipl~ne was granted; nor were relied upon. with an~ degree o~ emphas~s by the College in their presentation of this case. They ma2 amount ~o'mat~ore' o~ some concern tha~ a Dean maM want ~o raise with 'a Teaching ~as~er, but they are not the t~pe o~ thing that this Board feels warrants a letter of. discipline because in and of themselves they are too trivial. .: Therefore, because the .main reason for the' imposition' of tho letter of reprimand was a marking eys.te'm that appeared' suspicious, but that ultimately proved itself to be valid, ..... a~d because the minor matters' raised.in the letter of discipline are not signi[io'ant,, it is ou~ conclusion that the:. disciplinary letter of January 31, 1989 should be removed "~ ~=om the Griever's record. . 2. ~ebruary 23, 1989 - Letter of Reprimand Re~arding "' "Dovia~ion from Approved Valua=lon ~ethod - BCA 335" .~' :.:· . The BCA 335 course is one that th~ Griever had ' taught many times. The course is developed in co,Junction with other members of faculty. Prior to t.he running of the O9-11-OO 14:O1 ID= courser a course outline was drafted which was given to the . students, That outline con~ains the Teac.hl,g Hasters' and Departments' collective decision as. to how tho. course will bo run. In this case, the course outline indicated that there : would be four mid-term examinations in specified areas. During the meetings Which set up. tho course and the course outline, the Griever told his colleagues that he felt that.it wss inappropriate to try to administer four tests in .: the academic term. His experience from teaching the course previously had been that it is "nOt possible" to'give four ... toStS beuaus~ there is simply not enough ~eaching time to do ' SO · ;n the Eel1 of 1988~ th~ G~ievor told hie section the course that h~ ~ouZd only b~ g~ving ~h=m ~h~e.e set out in the course outline. ~a. rly in ~he ~all. semester .., ~s. Lim~i~do, the Chair of the Com~uter Studies Division', svoke to the Griever reminding him that the Co~ut-r ~tudi'es Division expected him to administer four tes~s in that term.. '~''' However, the Griever did not' do that. Ho admini'sterod three tes~s, bu~ did cover the f~ur spec/i/ed ~est a~eas., He told Ms. Li~lldo and khis Board o'f Arbitration thee his reason for doing that was that ther. o' wa~ no~ enough time In the . course to administer an appropriate test because ~hero was, ., not enough material early on .in the semester' to test upon;" :'. ." The Division con.si.doted the Gri0vor's deviation from =~ the Division's approved plan of tho course, On F0bruary 23, ~'' .:' 1989, 'a second letter of reprimand was issued ~o the Griever., concluding = :.:. .. In light of %he rocen.t warnings that have been ... issued 2o you regardin~ Four .performance during tho past semester I must adv. ise you that this is a serious matter and t~hat this' letter is tO. bo ~S-II-~0 14:~1 ID~ considered as a final warning. .AnY incidents of a similar nature may result in further discipli,e up to and including dismissal. B. Decision Rs~arding the Administration of Tests Tho 'Griever offered articulate and genuine explanations as to why he did not. conduct the four tests expected of him by the Computer Studies Divis~on. He clearly and honestly believes that it is not pedagogically sound to administer four tests in this particular subject. Ho also felt that his class was not read~ for. the first test. On the other hand, the Division dotQrmined that the subject should be taught with four tests as part of the course. It is difficult and awkward for a Board Of Arbitration to'~it in Judgment of an academic decision and that is not what we are required to do. Instead, we are required to determine whether, the discipline imposed upon tho.Ori, evor was Just u~dur all the The Computer Studies Division does, throuph its Teaching Masters, develop and design its own cours0s. This is done on a colle~ial bas~s by the Toaghing Masters working togs=her. Once the course is designed, that design is committed to paper by way of a course outline. That course' outline is g~ven to the students and stands as tho minimum expectation of what they can d0mand'in 'tho course. While the Griever may have had sound reasons for conducting the course as he did, we cannot find fault with the College"for saying that it is a d~sciplinary matter to deviate from the course outli,e unless there are very clear and persuasive reasons t0 do so. The Griever's ind~vidual Judgm0nt i, this case, ~hic~ Division, do~s not amount to that sound, conv~nc~n9 form. of evidencc which we would seek. It is simply his individual ..: Opinion. Hence, we fuel that th~ Collepo is ~usti~lud .in :;.. 09-11-00 14:02 ID= P.09 disciplining the Griever for his deviation Item the approved' svaluation method: Under tho circumstances, a written warnLng was appropriate. ' However, in.' order to clarify 't~/e .. Gr~evor's record, the letter of February 23 should be r~vised~ within the file to expunge any reference in the last 9a.ra~raph to tho events outlined in the January 31, ~989.. letter of warning. Thus, wi~h that.caveati this grievance iS 3, Ha~ch 29~ 1089 - A ~wo~Da~ Sus~onsion for ~' :' Non-Atton'daneo at a Class ... On Hatch ,27~ 1989 the 5riovo~ was scheduled to teach ... a Computer Studies course, Tho Griever did not a~tond to ::' " teach that class. Instead, he had given 2ho students an .: assign~nt previous to that day which he wanted the' students ]'. to complete without any assistance [rom him. Thus,. he :.':' designated ~o the students that the .Hatch 27th 'class" would be an "unsupervised study period." Study periods are a c.omm~n occurence at tho College and, indeed, a nu~er of' them are de~tg~ated in tho course, oUtline for this particular course. They are usually meant to be ~o=iods when the ,: studon~s can do work in the classroom and when the Teaching Ha~ter is present to offer any assistance. They count as contact hours in the calculation of the Toachin~ Master's teaching load. Tho Griever's designated unsupervised study 'period was. simply a scheduled class hour when ho expected ~tudents to attend in th~ classroom.and do the assigned work,~i but where he would not be p~esent or avai~able to the ~tudonts. The Griever felt that tho unsuporvisod study 9oriod was an appropriate thing tO schedule. HO did nok feut~ that he ne~dod any authorization from the administration to be absent from his classroom. In his testimony he made it "- olear that he considers what hu d~d to be a sound pedago~icai" t~achin9 device and that it is ~omething quite different b~in.g absent without leave. The Griever says that he felt " that it w&s ap~ropriate not to be in the class during the work period because "no one told me contrary." Ho testif£sd he.believed other Teachiog [tasters followed the same. prac. t~ce. However, there was no direct evidence of th~s. .Tho College sees this incident quite differently. The College sees. this as something akin .to an unauthorized cancellation of class. The Grieve= had cancelled 'a class in December of 1988 without authorization and was warned by Doan Howorth that this was inappropriate. Tho College's evidence made i~ clear that it would have had no objection to the Griever designating this particular class a.s a work study period. However, it expected that the'Griever be Present in the classroom at the time. Even though thc Grievor ts'stifled that he did not want students to come to him for answers on the assignment, the College feels that it is lmgera~ive that. the Griever be present for all scheduled classes. The Griever had lost a day"s pay ~o= the incident in December 1988 when he cancelled a class without authorization. On ~arch 29, 1989 he was given a lstter, o~'discip~!ne referring.' to the De~mber 19B8 issue as well 'as the warning letters 'of ~anuary 31 and February 23, 1989. After.the~e references the College con~luded~ As a result the College.has determined.that in the 'circumstances you are not entitled to sa!ary..for your day of absence, is, Hatch 27, 1989 and that a . .. 2-day suspens£on without pay is an measure to reflect the seriousness with which the College views you. r conduct.. Accordingly, you are advised that you are suspendpd withou~ pay o~ ... Thursday, ~arch 3'0 and F~iday, ~arch .31, 1989 and consequently reltevod et your duties and rosponsib~lities on those dates. Please be advised that any'Incidents of a.s.imilar nature may result ~n further d~scipline u~ 'to and' ~nclud~ng dismissal. ., The Union suggested in crosa-examination that it would be ;' ironic if the Griever's classes had to be cancelled while served hi, suspen$ion. But, there ts no evidence cE what· actually happened, nor can t~.lnfluence the decision. : . C. D~ct~ion Repardtn9 Scheduled Classes Again, wo wish to reiterate that it ia not the '.~. function of a Board of Arbi~ra~ton ~o de,ermine how courses % ... ough~ to be taught or how classrooms ought to be run. All v~ ~an do ts si~ obJec~vely and determine wheth~= the ;: discipline imposed in ~he =l=cum0tancoe of. th~ c~s~ is Jus~ a~d fair. Th~s situation c=eatos a classic, di[e~a. OR .the.:'. one hand we have the College, as ompl0Yer, saying that as a bare minimum It has a right to. demand that the employees, ..... ~hoir scheduled teaching or class=dom hours. F~rthorr .. ' management says that it ha~ the right to di~c~plin~ a~y .... .'. employee for his/her failure to live up .~o ~his minimum .. " requiremen'~. On the o~her hand, we have a Teaching who is saying that he decided, to conduct himself in a. manner "' that would be of academic benefit to the StUdents, ]na purely fheoretical sense, tho right of the College as tho Employer and the right of tho Teaching Masts= . .. a~ ~he teacher in.cha=ge of hi~ classroom could bo ve~ ..... difficult ~o reconcile. However, in tho cirsumstancos o[ the'~ case, the reconciliation is not difficult. It Is virtually impossible to imagine any academic or p0dagogicaI Justification for telling students to appear, in a classroom : .j even thouoh the teacher has no intention of ,presenting ht~olf/herself there.to be o~ any assistance to ~h.e' students. If a teacher wants students to perform assionments'[ on thoir own without tho ~oachor"s assistance, th~s can bo accompliphed by either as,toning homework or assigning a ID= ~tudy or wo~k. period ~hero~n ~ho teacher i~ p=osont to on~u~o : that students are ~orkiag~ but wisely av0tds giving the . to ~ork In ghe classroom at their ~gulariy ~chedul,d hour and, as tho Grieve= admits, ho was not available, to the etudents in any way during that hour. Despite what ~he .'. 6rievor ma~ have ~el~ was an honestl~ held pedagogical Justt[ication for what ho did, we soo no difference In those '; acttoas than from him simply being absent from a scheduled' cla~ ~tthout prior authorization,. Ne are also ~onoernod ' because ~ho G~ievor gave no [ndica~ton at ~o hearing that h'e has r, alized that there wa~ any Justi~lable cause oE concern on the part o~ the Colleg, ~or. this :type of conduct, Clearly, th~ Griever does not understand 'that what he did . inap~ropriate or Justifiably una6cop2abIe b~ the college. . .~'.: Given that tho Orievor was disciplined earlier ~or an ',. abs~,ce without authorization, and given that thfs-~a=tic~!a.r ;~. the two-da~ ~uspens[on ~mposed by a College was outside the r0alm of a reasonable ro,ponse by management. ~e~ce, we do .; not ~oul it a~proprtate to tnto~[.ere with that decision. ~enco, thiB grievance ~s also dismissed. However, once a~ai~, th~ pa=ti.es are directed to .change the wo~ding o~ 'tho ]: ' .. ~arch 29, 1989 letter of discipline [o remove any torero, nco to tho' loteoc o~ January 31, 1989. Conclusion ' llonce, for all the reasons mentioned above, tho .. ;'. ' grievance against the first letter of discipline is uphel'd'. :'.: .. The ~econd and ~hird griovanc~s have been dismi~sed. ,, ~owovor, the ~mployer has boon directed to reword tho ' 0~-11-~0 14:04 ID= P. 13 .: contents o~ thoae l~ttere ~.o expunge any :te~erence to the Incidents sot forth in tho letter of January 3'1, 1989. '.. .i DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 24th' day of December, ' 1990. ' ~ concur. "R ~oG ~ dissent'. ~ea~ons to follow. "Brian Swit~man" ., Union ~omtn~e' '- :.' ,.~ 2':.