Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 17-05-08 (Eng)APPEAL WITH REGARD TO WORKLOAD BETWEEN: LA CITÉ COLLÉGIALE ("Employer") - AND - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 470 ("Union") Hearing held in Ottawa, April 26 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ ARBITRATION AWARD Arbitrator: Michelle Flaherty Date: May 8, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES For the Employer, Pascal Bessette, Caroline Lauzon, Michaël Dumoulin, Frédéric Thibault-Chabot For the Union, Sébastien Osborne, Mona Chevalier [1] This Appeal relates to the workload of four academic employees ("professors"). More specifically, the Appeal raises the question of which tasks can be recorded on the Standard W orkload Form ("SWF") of professors during a non-teaching period. [2] In a decision dated July 21, 2016, Arbitrator O'Neil addressed a related issue: La Cité collégiale and OPSEU, Local 470, (O'Neil, 2016). She concluded that during a non-teaching period, the Collective Agreement allows the Employer to issue a SWF for curriculum review and course development. [3] The question asked in this Appeal is whether the tasks assigned to professors on the SWF in March 2017 are course development or curriculum review activities. This question is significant because (during a non-teaching period) only these types of tasks can be recorded on the SWF. All other tasks are undertaken by mutual agreement. [4] The SWFs in question relate to the non-teaching period from May 8 to June 7, 2017. The Employer has recorded the following two tasks on these SWFs: a. Preparation of an assessment tool entitled "Prior Learning Assessment" or "PLA"; and b. Development of a program guide ("Guide"). The Collective Agreement [5] The relevant provisions in the Collective Agreement are as follows: 11.08 In keeping with the professional responsibility of the teacher, non - teaching periods are used for activities initiated by the teacher and by the College as part of the parties’ mutual commitment to professionalism, the quality of education and professional development. 2 Such activities will be undertaken by mutual consent and agreement will not be unreasonably withheld. No SWF will be issued but such activities may be documented. Where mutually agreed activities can be appropriately performed outside the College, scheduling shall be at the discretion of the teacher, subject to the requirement to meet appropriate deadlines. 11.01D 3 (ix) Hours for curriculum review or course development assigned to a teacher on an ongoing basis, in lieu of teaching or in a non -teaching period, shall be attributed on an hour for hour basis and recor ded on the SWF. [6] The words "course development" and "curriculum review" are not defined in the Collective Agreement. Indeed, the crux of the dispute between the parties stems from different interpretations of these expressions. The position of the parties [7] The Employer is of the view that curriculum revision and course development correspond to all courses and coaching tools (such as the PLA and the Guide) that comprise a training program. Furthermore, the inclusion of the PLA in course development is justified because the Directive requires PLA tools development. [8] The Employer contends that there is room for a b roader interpretation of the words "course development" and "curriculum review". He cites two arbitration awards to support this argument: OPSEU and Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology, (Stockton, 1995) and OPSEU and Fanshawe College, (Gorsky, 1987). In the Niagara 3 case, the arbitrator concluded that the review of course information sheets, in order to include information on learning outcomes, is a task related to curriculum review. In the Fanshawe case, the arbitrator agreed that the preparation of individual collections of instruction falls under the definition of curriculum review or course development. [9] For its part, the Union explains that a broad definition of "curriculum review" or "course development" ensures that any task becomes complementary and can be added to the SWF for a non-teaching period. According to the Union, a broad definition of the expressions in question deprives provisions 11.08 and 11.01 D 3 (ix) of any meaning. [10] The Union submits that the jurisprudence cited by the Employer dates back more than 20 years. The Union also refers to Article 11.02 F 6 of the Collective Agreement, which provides that an arbitration award on workload "shall have effect only for the teacher concerned and shall not apply after the end of a 12-month period since the start of the workload assignment. Analysis [11] Much of a teacher's duties involve, directly or indirectly, courses and curriculum. Significantly, in the Collective Agreement, the parties agreed that there are limits to what can be recorded on a SWF during a non-teaching period. An overly broad interpretation of "curriculum review" and "course development" would render meaningless the provisions cited above and would not be consistent with the intent of the parties as expressed in the Collective Agreement. [12] That being said, les expressions "curriculum review" and "course development" should not be interpreted in an overly narrow manner. For example, curriculum review can certainly include activities that extend beyond the content of a course. 4 [13] It is important to emphasize that my role is not to decide on a comprehensive definition of "curriculum review" or "course development." My only task is to examine the quality and nature of the two tasks assigned by the Employer in March 2017, to determine whether they relate to course development or curriculum review within the context of Article 11.01D 3 (ix) of the collective agreement. The PLA (Prior Learning Assessment) [14] The parties agree that the PLA is a tool for assessing whether a student has the necessary knowledge to be exempted from a course. The Enforcement Directive 3.0 issued by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities ("Directive") defined the PLA as: A process using a variety of tools to assist learners in examining, recognizing, explaining and demonstrating previously acquired knowledge and skills. [15] The Directive states that the PLA must be available "for as many courses as possible" and that information on the PLA process should be included in publications on college admissions. [16] The Union believes that the development of the PLA is not an activity related to curriculum review or course development. According to the Union, course development refers to activities and preparations related to the delivery of a course. The PLA is not required to deliver a course; rather it has a reverse object, since it serves to circumvent the need to follow the course. [17] According to the Union, in addition to the discussions that have taken place in this Appeal, no direction has been received as to the preparation of the PLA. Although the teacher may use earlier test elements and other existing activities to develop a PLA, 5 it will not always be possible or sufficient. Existing evaluation tools could in clude different evaluation methods (presentations, assignments, etc.) and not all of them will be evaluated in the format of the PLA. In addition, the teacher must ensure that the PLA is representative of all the material in a course and allows for the fai r evaluation of knowledge in a given period. [18] The Employer argues that the PLA is part of the framework for curriculum development, as required by the Directive. According to the Employer, the PLA is an assessment tool that teachers must develop as pa rt of curriculum review or course development in order to assess whether a student has already acquired the skills to be exempted from the course. Thus, for the Employer, the expression "course development" includes the development of standards required by the Ministry and extends beyond the tools used by the teaching staff for course delivery. [19] I am of the opinion that the development of the PLA is not a task that involves course development or curriculum review. A number of factors support this conclusio n. Although it can be generated on the basis of existing evaluations, the PLA is a separate assessment tool that is by definition applied outside of the course. Moreover, the ordinary meaning of the words "course development" does not include the developme nt of an evaluation tool that will be used other than in the context of the course . [20] Curriculum review may include the identification of learning objectives or learning outcomes, it does not aim to develop evaluation tools that will be used for the PLA. Without considering the relevance or weight to be given to the workload jurisprudence, I am of the opinion that the nature of the tasks in the SWF in this case is substantially distinct from the tasks at issue in the jurisprudence quoted by the Employer. For example, the development of an evaluation tool for use outside of the course is a different task from revising course information sheets with the objective of including information about learning outcomes. 6 [21] It is clear that the PLA is part of the framework for curriculum development under the Ministry's Directive. However, the fact that the task is somehow related to a course or a ministerial directive does not necessarily mean that it is equivalent to course development or curriculum review. In my opinion, the development of evaluation materials for the PLA is a function that goes beyond what is meant by "course development" or "curriculum review." The Guide (Development of a program guide) [22] The Employer prepared a template for the Guide and on the SWF he asks professors to meet, discuss some elements of the curriculum, and fill in some aspects of the template. These aspects include program objectives, sequence of courses, internship requirements, take-up exams, pre-apprenticeships and specific rules for moving into the program. [23] The Employer did not provide a copy of the template when the SWF was presented to the professors. This document was disclosed later, in the context of the hearing of this Appeal. The Union explained that without the template, the professors were not able to judge the scope of the work requested and could not determine whether the work was actually related to curriculum review. [24] Having now had the opportunity to read the template, the Union agrees that certain aspects of the task assigned constitute curriculum review. However, the Union argues that other aspects of the Guide are not related to curriculum review or course development, including health and safety rules of conduct, or the policy to apply in the event of absence. According to the Union, it follows that these aspects of the task should not recorded on the SWF. 7 [25] The Employer explained that the Guide is the primary tool for centralizing curriculum information and for communicating to all students information about the conditions of success in their curriculum. According to the Employer, in order to understand his/her progress through the program, the student must be able to identify all the conditions for success, including the rules of conduct and the policy on absenteeism. [26] In my view, the vast majority of the tasks related to the Guide fall under curriculum review. However, the link between curriculum review and absences and rules of conduct is rather tenuous. These aspects seem to be more like pedagogical guidelines rather than real components of the curriculum. However, since they are of a minimal nature, they cannot reasonably be separated from the main task of examining the curriculum and supplementing the Guide. It follows that the preparation of the Gui de as a whole is an exercise in curriculum review and can be recorded on the SWF. Conclusion and next steps [27] For the above reasons, the development of the Guide is a task that can be recorded on the SWF during a non-teaching period. However, the development of the PLA is not a task that is part of curriculum review or course development and therefore cannot be recorded on the SWF during a non-teaching period. [28] Il is important to emphasize that the development of the PLA is a task which can be undertaken during a non-teaching period by mutual agreement. According to Article 11.08 of the Collective Agreement, "This agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld.” [29] In the Appeal, the Union also raises the question of whether the hours allocated are adequate. At the hearing, the parties agreed to split the case and that the issue of 8 whether the tasks in question could be recorded on the SWF would be decided first. [30] In view of the above conclusion, the only question remaining is whether the hours allocated for the development of the Guide are adequate. I re serve judgement on this matter, in case the parties cannot resolve it between them. Signed on May 8, 2017. Michelle Flaherty 9