HomeMy WebLinkAboutSchaffer 16-6-14 1
IN THE MATTER OF A WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
NORTHERN COLLEGE
(Herein after referred to as the “College”)
AND
THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 653
(Herein after referred to as “OPSEU”)
WORKLOAD COMPLAINT OF WARREN SCHAFFER
ARBITRATOR: Tanja Wacyk
APPEARANCES:
FOR MR. SCHAFFER: Lad Shaba, Local President; David Silver,
Local Vice-President; Suzanne Tremblay,
Chief Steward; Mr. Schaffer
FOR THE COLLEGE: Dean Lessard, Associate Dean of Business,
Community Services, and International, and
Co-Chair of the Workload Monitoring
Group; Doug Clark, Dean of Science; Sarah
De Pinto, Human Resource Generalist
LOCATION OF HEARING: Kirkland Lake
2
DECISION
1. This decision deals with the workload complaint, pursuant to Article 11 of the Collective
Agreement, of Mr. Warren Schaffer. Mr. Schaffer teaches in the Veterinary Science Program.
2. The issue in this workload grievance is whether Mr. Schaffer ought to have been assigned two
hours of tutorial, rather than one, for each of his two sections of Clinical Calculations II
(VT2073).
3. Mr. Schaffer maintains the Clinical Calculations II course “constitutes atypical circumstances of
workload” as set out in Article 11.01 G 2:
11.01 G 2 Where there are atypical circumstances affecting the workload of a teacher
or group of teachers which are not adequately reflected in this Article 11, Workload,
additional hours shall be attributed, following discussion between each teacher
individually and the supervisor, on an hour for hour basis.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES:
Mr. Schaffer and OPSEU
4. Each of the two Clinical Calculations II sections has been allocated three hours of class time and
one hour of tutorial. Mr. Schaffer submits this is a departure from the previous structure of the
course, which included two hours of tutorial. He requests the restoration of the additional tutorial
hour to each section.
5. Mr. Schaffer submits the additional hour of tutorial is required because of the atypical nature of
the course. Specifically, Mr. Schaffer indicates the lack of preparedness on the part of the
students to deal with the mathematical aspects central to the course necessitates the additional
practical exercises available to them during tutorial time. He indicates this lack of preparedness
is a historic problem in the Course, resulting in the pass grade being adjusted downward from
70% to 65%.
6. Mr. Schaffer also indicates mastery of the mathematics in the course is essential to avoid critical
errors in administering medication to veterinary patients.
3
7. Further, the Clinical Calculations II course is a prerequisite for a number of Semester Three
courses, and it is important the students master the mathematical calculations to ensure they are
able to progress through the Program.
8. While Mr. Schaffer concedes the additional hour tutorial would not be a complete strategy to deal
with the issue, he maintains it would be an important component of any remedial approach.
9. Mr. Schaffer made several, and on their face compelling additional arguments regarding why an
additional hour of tutorial was necessary to strengthen the mathematical learning of the students.
However, for reasons set out below, there is no need to set them out.
10. Professor David Silver also testified in support of Mr. Schaffer’s request for additional tutorial
time. Professor Silver started the Veterinary Science Program, has served as its Coordinator, and
currently teaches in the program. Professor Silver agreed with Mr. Schaffer’s characterization of
the course as “atypical” on the basis of its mathematical challenges. He also opined that more
time spent with students in an environment enabling them to practice their mathematical skills
would be beneficial.
The College
11. Mr. Dean Lessard, Associate Dean of Business, Community Services, and International, testified
on behalf of the College.
12. Mr. Lessard maintained Articles 06.01(ii) and (iii) of the Collective Agreement, entitle it to
structure the work of the teachers. Those Articles state:
6.01 It is the exclusive function of the Colleges to:
…
(ii) hire, discharge, transfer, classify, assign, appoint, promote, demote, lay off,
recall and suspend or otherwise discipline employees subject to the right to lodge
a grievance in the manner and to the extent provided in this Agreement;
4
(iii) manage the College and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,
the right to plan, direct and control operations, facilities, programs, courses,
systems and procedures, direct its personnel, determine complement,
organization, methods and the number, location and classification of personnel
required from time to time, the number and location of campuses and facilities,
services to be performed, the scheduling of assignments and work, the
extension, limitation, curtailment, or cessation of operations and all other rights
and responsibilities not specifically modified elsewhere in this Agreement.
[emphasis added]
13. The College conceded that in structuring the teacher’s assignments, pursuant to Article 6.02, it
was required to comply with the Collect Agreement provisions governing Workload in Article 11.
Article 6.02 states:
6.02 The Colleges agree that these functions will be exercised in a manner consistent
with the provisions of this Agreement.
14. The College further maintained Mr. Schaffer’s total workload assignment was in compliance with
Article 11. In particular, the College submitted Mr. Schaffer’s workload, including his
assignment in Clinical Calculations II, complies with Article 11.01 B, which sets out the
parameters of total assigned workload:
11.01 B 1 Total workload assigned and attributed by the College to a teacher shall not
exceed 44 hours in any week for up to 36 weeks in which there are teaching contact
hours for teachers in post-secondary programs and for up to 38 weeks in which there
are teaching contact hours in the case of teachers not in post-secondary programs.
The balance of the academic year shall be reserved for complementary functions and
professional development.
Workload factors to be considered are:
(i) teaching contact hours
(ii) attributed hours for preparation
(iii) attributed hours for evaluation and feedback
(iv) attributed hours for complementary functions.
15. That having been said, the College submitted Mr. Schaffer’s predecessor (full-time), had had 4.64
hours less assigned and attributed time for teaching the course than does Mr. Schaffer. In
addition, the predecessor had more students.
16. Finally, the College submitted that the two hours of tutorial time initially assigned to Mr.
Schaffer, and relied on by him in this matter, was a component of a temporary development plan,
intended to support him in his introduction to the course. It appears however, Mr. Schaffer was
not advised of this at the time.
5
ANALYSIS:
17. Mr. Schaffer argues that in order to adequately deliver the course, an additional hour ought to be
added to the scheduled tutorial time.
18. This is a slight variation on other workload complaints which have attempted to utilize Article
11.01 G 2, atypical circumstances, to argue that in order to adequately deliver a course, more time
had to be spent than either assigned or attributed in the workload formula in Article 11.
19. In one such instance, Arbitrator O’Neil, in her decision in Algonquin College, (January 29, 2003),
dealt with the request of a teacher seeking more preparation time. In that instance, there had been
some scheduling conflicts and confusion resulting in her preparing for a course she ultimately did
not teach, resulting in additional stress for her. In addition, the teacher sought more preparation
time on her SWF, in order to provide “the best” to her students, and on the basis her preparation
time constituted “atypical circumstances” pursuant to Article 11.01 G 2.
20. In denying the teacher’s request, Arbitrator O’Neil noted in her decision in Algonquin College, on page 1:
…
The union argues that there are ways to attribute the time requested within the
parameters of the workload formula, such as Article … 11.01 G 2, the atypical
circumstances clause. I have considered the option of complementary hours to address
the entirely credible situation described by Ms. Sumitro, but I do not find that the
circumstances presented in evidence are really atypical. … It is not part of the design
of the workload formula, in my view, to use …the atypical circumstances clause, as a
tool to adjust individual SWF’s (sic) to record the actual hours spent by individual
professors.
21. I agree with Arbitrator O’Neil in that instance.
22. Further, I find the instant case gives rise to essentially the same or a very similar issue. Mr. Schaffer
understandably wished to better support students’ mathematics needs, which in his view, would be
facilitated by the assignment of an additional hour tutorial.
23. However, consistent with Ms. O’Neil’s decision in Algonquin College, I further find that the workload
formula is not designed for the utilization of the atypical circumstances provision i.e. Article 11.01 G 2, to
assign additional time a teacher believes is necessary to adequately teach a course – when the challenges
are integral to the teaching of that course.
6
24. Rather, Article 11.01 G 2 is intended to compensate teachers whose SWFs do not adequately reflect their
workload because of atypical circumstances that are not integral to the teaching of the course, and are not
part of the usual educational duties and responsibilities generally associated with a teaching position.
25. An example of such atypical circumstances is addressed in the May 12, 2005 Sault College decision of a
panel chaired by Arbitrator Owen Shime (Shime, M. B. Young, R. Davidson) (the “Shime Decision”), 2005
CanLII 49657 (ON LA). Arbitrator Shime, writing on behalf of the majority, held that 1.5 hours of
mandatory Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (“WHMIS”) training was to be included
on the Faculty’s SWFs.
26. The basis for this determination was the majority’s finding that WHMIS training, while adding to a
teacher’s knowledge, is a highly selective and “even idiosyncratic” training. The majority further found the
WHMIS training to be a “stand alone” function that is not part of the usual educational duties and
responsibilities generally associated with a teaching position, and “does not enhance the teaching or
educational functions usually associated with teaching”. Accordingly, the majority found the WHMIS
training constituted “atypical circumstances” as contemplated in Article 11.01 G 2.
27. I do not mean to suggest there will never be any aspects of a course that may render it “atypical
circumstances”. In my decision in OPSEU Local 556 and George Brown College (October 8, 2002,
unreported), the union was able to demonstrate Mr. Burgess, the teacher at issue, had 1500 student contact
hours, which was about 350% higher than the provincial averages of 401.1 and 370.5. I further found the
average student contact hours per faculty at George Brown was less than 500. Accordingly, I found Mr.
Burgess’ large number of student contact hours, in the context of both provincial and George Brown
College averages, did constitute an atypical circumstance. The high student contact hours were clearly a
significant departure from what was typically the norm.
28. In this instance, Mr. Schaffer makes a persuasive case, that it would be beneficial for students to have an
additional hour of tutorial to enable them to practice the critical mathematical skills they must acquire in
the program. That having been said, there is little doubt most programs would benefit from additional
teaching time, whether it be in teaching contact hours or optional tutorials. However, that is not a decision
that is within my authority to make.
29. Rather, as argued by the College, I find Article 6.01 (iii), set out above, gives the College the authority and
right to plan, direct and control programs and their courses; as well as to direct its personnel, including
scheduling of assignments and work. In other words, it is within the College’s authority to determine how
its resources can be best deployed and structured throughout the College.
7
30. There is no dispute that authority, as argued by Mr. Schaffer and the OPSEU, is constrained by the specific
provisions of the Collective Agreement, including Article 11. However, outside of the reliance on Article
11.01 G 2, there is no suggestion Mr. Schaffer’s SWF does not comply with the parameters of Article 11.01
B 1.
DETERMINATION:
31. For the reasons set out above, this Workload Complaint is dismissed.
DATED AT TORONTO, THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2016.
“Tanja Wacyk”
Workload Resolution Arbitrator