HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 16-06-21 (Eng)
1
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COLLEGES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
- AND-
WITH REGARD TO AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
LA CITÉ COLLÉGIALE
- the Employer [La Cité or the College]
- et -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 470
- the Union [OPSEU]
Grievance related to Standard
Workload Formula (SWF) for
Curriculum Review
Grievance #2015-0470-0010
BEFORE:
Kathleen G. O’Neil,
Sole Arbitrator
Union represented by: Kim Patenaude, Attorney
Employer represented by: George Vuicic, Attorney
Hearing in Ottawa, June 2016
2
Arbitration Award
This decision concerns a grievance which raises a question of interpretation of the provisions of
the Collective Agreement on workload, including how to indicate the time allocated for
curriculum revision during non-teaching periods, typically the months of May and June.
The parties agree that the College must provide a Standard Workload Form (SW F) for this type
of work, but the union contends that the collective agreement does not authorize a SWF for
periods without teaching duties, citing Articles 11.01 B 1 and 11.08 (see below). According to
the Union, the Employer therefore must issue a SWF that recognizes curriculum revision work,
but the work must be on a SWF for a pre- or post-teaching period. On the other hand, the
Employer is of the opinion that the Collective Agreement allows him to allocate these hours
during a non-teaching period in accordance with Article 11.01 D3 (ix) on a separate SWF for the
same period.
No objection has been raised to my jurisdiction to hear this grievance, which was filed by the
Union in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Collective Agreement.
The Collective Agreement
The provisions of Article 11 relevant to this case in general are numerous and can be found in
Appendix A, but the key paragraphs in this case are as follows:
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:
teaching contact hours
attributed hours for preparation
3
11.01 D 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 recorded on the SWF.
…
11.02 A 2
The SWF shall include all details of the total workload including teaching contact hours,
accumulated contact days, accumulated teaching contact hours, number of sections
type and number of preparations, type of evaluation/feedback required by the
curriculum, class size, attributed hours, contact days, language of instruction and
complementary functions. …
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.
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.
The facts
The facts necessary for this decision are not really disputed, and may be briefly recounted.
Some professors in the photography program contacted the Union in the Spring of 2015
regarding a question on curriculum revision. Their program was a transition to an accelerated
mode, which required the revision of the sequence and content of courses, as well as the
development of new courses. Representatives of the Local, including Sébastien Osborne,
Grievance Officer and witness for the Union, advised the professors of their interpretation of
Article 11, saying that the review or development of courses done in non-teaching periods must
4
be recorded at on SWF for a period that contained teaching hours. Otherwise, the advice to the
professors was not to consent to doing this work.
The program supervisor, Frédéric Thibaut-Chabot, Director of the Institute of Health and Life
Sciences, testified that La Cité does not do the SWFs in the manner desired by the Union. To
the best of his knowledge, the hours assigned for the revision or course development work done
in a non-teaching period are not on a SWF for an earlier or later period that contains teaching
contact hours. He was aware that some professors were not willing to accept this type of work
without a SWF for a teaching period that recognized the work of course revision done in a
period without subsequent or previous teaching contact hours. In these cases of refusal, he did
not insist and found someone else to do this work. One example was a 15-hour contract with a
part-time professor for the development of a course outline.
The parties’ positions and conclusions
The issue is whether the Employer violates the Collective Agreement when it issues a separate
SWF for a non-teaching period for curriculum revision or course development work.
The Union alleges that the Collective Agreement only provides for SWFs for a period with
teaching contact hours. Given that Article 11.01 D 3 (ix) provides for a SWF for curriculum
revision or course development work even in a non-teaching period, the Union states that this
type of work must be recognized on a SWF pour an adjacent period with teaching contact
hours.
The Employer is of the opinion that there is nothing in the Collective Agreement that reserves
SWFs for periods involving teaching contact hours. More important in this case, according to
the Employer, the parties expressly provided SWFs for curriculum revision or course
development outside of teaching periods in Article 11.01 D 3 (ix).
5
Given that both parties agree that the Employer must issue a SWF for curriculum review or
course development work, the dispute is very limited, limited to the issue of which SWF, one
counting teaching contact hours, or a separate SWF for the non-teaching period.
I begin with the Union’s position, and Article 11.01 B1, which the Union interprets as requiring
contact hours for a SWF, since this article refers to the total workload assigned and allocated to
professors, and that Article 11.02 A2 requires the employer to include "all elements of the total
workload, including teaching contact hours". In addition, Article 11.08 makes it clear that periods
other than teaching contact hours are used for activities undertaken by mutual agreement and
not to be recorded in writing on a SWF. As noted earlier, the Union reports that Article 11.01 D 3
(ix) is for a SWF for curriculum review or course development work, but argues that this SWF
must also include teaching contact hours.
For the Employer, the meaning of the words referring to the inclusion of teaching contact hours
on a SWF in Articles 11.01 B 1 and 11.02 A 2 read in the context of Article 11 in its entirety, and
in the light of the trend in the relevant case-law, must be understood to include the teaching
contact hours, if any, in the period in question. For the reasons that follow, I agree that it is the
preferable interpretation, which best harmonizes the various provisions of Article 11, and best
fits with the relevant arbitration awards.
I begin by noting that Articles 11.08 and 11.01 D 3, read together but separate from the rest of
Article 11, seem to be contradictory. Both speak of periods outside of a teaching period, but
Article 11.08 deals with the absence of a SWF for such a period, while Article 11.01 D 3 (ix)
requires one for curriculum revision or course development.
The Employer’s Attorney mentioned that Article 11.08 was negotiated in a round of negotiations
subsequent to the introduction in 1986 of the workload formula, now section 11. I note that the
primary effect of Article 11.08 seems to be to distinguish the type of complementary functions
6
undertaken in periods other than that of the type assigned, typically in teaching periods,
discussed in detail in Article 11.01 F. It can be assumed that the negotiators' priorities were
different in the two rounds and that interaction with Article 11.01 D 3 (ix) was not necessarily an
important point, but it is not a subject addressed in the evidence, or necessary to that decision.
For our purposes, it is sufficient to refer to the ordinary rules of contract interpretation, in
particular the aim of harmonizing all the provisions of a contract as far as possible. The
positions of the parties are two different proposals with the same aim, to make the various
conditions of Article 11 reasonably compatible.
In order to settle the dispute, there is another useful tool of interpretation here: that a specific
term defines the meaning of a more general term. See, among many other decisions, BG Checo
International Ltd. C. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 SCR 12, 1993 CanLII
145 (SCC) where the Supreme Court confirmed that where there is a conflict between a general
condition and a specific condition they can be reconciled if It is considered that the parties
intended that the general condition should not apply to the subject-matter of the specific
condition. If we look at the issue that concerns us in this way, the provisions can be reconciled
fairly easily. The parties recognized in Article 11.01 D 3 that curriculum revision or course
development work may be assigned in a period outside of teaching periods and specified an
obligation to record it on a SWF. It is a much more specific provision than Article 11.01 B1,
11.02 A 2 or 11.08, which allows an exception to these more general terms, and more typical
application. In addition, there is no wording that explicitly precludes a separate SWF for such a
period. Therefore, I consider that La Cité can allocate these hours, during a non-teaching
period, to a separate SWF for that period, without violating the Collective Agreement.
In that regard, I was not persuaded to accept the union position that would require a conclusion
that the grammatical ordinary meaning of Articles 11.01 B1 and 11.02 A2 requires the inclusion
of teaching contact hours to meet these terms. The grammatical meaning of these terms is best
viewed, in my view, as a list of things that must be included on a SWF, if they exist under the
current circumstances. The circumstances described in Article 11.01 B 1 are, in the first
paragraph, that of teaching periods.
7
I see Article 11.02 A 2 in the same manner. To harmonize it with the rest of the terms of Article
11, in particular Article 11.01 D 3 (ix), the much preferable interpretation is that all elements of
the workload should be included, depending on the tasks assigned to the professor for the
period covered by the SWF, whether it includes teaching contact hours or not.
One of the elements found in Article 11.02 A 2 is the category of supplementary functions. The
Union’s Attorney did not dispute in her oral argument that the work of revising the curriculum in
question is a complementary function. If the total workload for the period covered by the SWF is
for such a complementary function, there are no teaching contact hours or other related factors,
such as the type of preparations and evaluation, etc. In my view, neither the wording of Article
11.01 B1 nor Article 11.02 A 2 necessitates the conclusion that teaching contact hours must be
assigned or allocated to a professor to record a teaching load. Work on a SWF in Article 11.01
D 3 (ix) explicitly recognizes that hours of curriculum revision may be allocated in lieu of
teaching contact hours or outside a teaching period, and that in both cases should be recorded
in a SWF. In my view, in order to achieve the Union's desired result, the Collective Agreement
would have required the Employer to always include teaching hours in a workload to allow it to
be recorded on a SWF, no workload without teaching contact hours should be recorded on a
SWF. The Collective Agreement does not expressly state that, and I am of the view that to infer
such a finding would unnecessarily create an inconsistency with Article 11.01 D 3 (ix). The
Union agrees that a 15-hour curriculum revision task, the amount of time mentioned in evidence
for the development of a course outline, qualifies as a continuing assignment to a professor,
according to the wording of this article; therefore this is not a point in dispute here.
In support of the Union’s position, the Union’s Attorney referred to the jurisprudence, for which
the full citations are in Appendix B, but I am of the view that these decisions do not address the
very narrow issue that concerns us. For example, the parties here are not in dispute regarding
the Loyalist College case decision (Devlin, 1991), which merely establishes that two meetings
on the curriculum review do not constitute a continuous assignment within the meaning of
Article 11.01 D 3 (ix). The decision referred other issues related to individual workloads to the
expedited workload dispute resolution process. The other decisions cited by the Union such as
8
Sault College (Mitchnick, 1993), Durham College (Schiff, 1995), Humber College (Devlin, 2005)
and Sault College (Shime, 2005), an uncontested proposition before me, i.e. Article 11.01 D 3
(ix) constitutes a recognized exception to the scope of Article 11.08.
Decisions that deal with issues similar to the one before us are decisions of an arbitrator on
workload that are expressly considered to have a limited effect under Article 11.02 F 6. They
may nevertheless serve as examples of the conclusions other arbitrators who have examined
the same wording. These decisions, also referred to in Appendix B, state that: (1) the workload
formula does not always require that a SWF include teaching contact hours; see two decisions
Loyalist College (Ketchson, 1987 and Bond, 1987); (2) the Collective Agreement does not
prohibit a SWF for a non-teaching period and that distributing curriculum revision tasks over a
period longer than the period in which they were required could be disadvantageous to the
professors; see Loyalist College (Wishart, 1987); And (3) the Employer has the right to request
complementary duties in periods of non-teaching; See Loyalist College (Peck, 1987) and
Seneca College (Traves, 1987).
There is also the Seneca College decision in 1987 by arbitrator Reno, which had rendered three
preliminary decisions supporting an interpretation similar to that put forward by the Union but
which had eventually accommodated the Employer's position in the face of new evidence with
regard to the precedent of negotiations on the workload formula and the local practice of the
parties. He concluded that the wording now found in Article 11.02 A 2 ‘the SWF must include all
elements of the total workload, including teaching contact hours ...’ meant that Include them
when such elements exist, and that the spirit of this article is indeed transparency regarding
workloads actually assigned, rather than creating a prerequisite for a valid SWF. In short, these
decisions constitute several examples of the reasoned rejection of the important elements of the
position put forward by the Union. Most of them date back more than 20 years, during which the
parties did not choose to change or clarify the wording in question, which supports the
acceptability of this interpretation, or at least, to establish the existing interpretation context in
which the current Collective Agreement was negotiated.
There is also the Humber College decision - 2005 of Arbitrator Nairn in which she rejected a
workload complaint that asked for the allocation of time for curriculum revision made during a
non-teaching period in spring on a subsequent SWF for a teaching period in the fall. The
circumstances were not quite the same as those for us, and there were different issues, but the
principle that Article 11 does not provide for the allocation of time for work in an adjacent period
9
is relevant. The Arbitrator stated that it considers that the allocation of time on a subsequent
SWF, for work done in an earlier period would imply a double assignment for the same work.
In short, I accept the Employer’s position that certain complementary functions, such as
curriculum revision or course development, are dealt with separately and that the employer has
an obligation to record them on a SWF in non-teaching periods as well as in teaching periods.
Moreover, there is nothing in the Collective Agreement that prevents the employer from issuing
a separate SWF for the period in question. In this respect, and in general, I agree with the
employer's submission that the concept of Article 11 is that each period is distinct, whether
teaching or non-teaching. On the other hand, I do not see anything in the Collective Agreement
that prevents the issuance of a SWF that covers a period that includes teaching and non-
teaching periods, if the circumstances are appropriate and the other provisions of the section 11
are respected.
I also accept the Employer Attorney's submission that a finding that would oblige the Employer
to issue SWFs that include the workload for another period could create problems of anticipating
work to be done in subsequent periods, as well as problems for teachers who should be
responding to a SWF for a period well before the period in question, with all the uncertainty
associated with a period with less proximity.
***
For the reasons I have just given, I believe that the issuance of a separate SWF for curriculum
revision or course development for a period outside of instruction is not a violation of the
Collective Agreement.
10
Consequently, the grievance is rejected.
Toronto, July 21, 2016.
Kathleen G. O’Neil, Arbitrator
11
APPENDIX A
Article 11
WORKLOAD
11.01 A Each teacher shall have a workload that adheres to the provisions of this Article.
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:
teaching contact hours
attributed hours for preparation
attributed hours for evaluation and feedback
attributed hours for complementary functions
B 2 A “teaching contact hour" is a College scheduled teaching hour assigned to the teacher by the College.
C Each teaching contact hour shall be assigned as a 50 minute block plus a break of up to
ten minutes.
The voluntary extension of the teaching contact hour beyond 50 minutes by the
teacher and any student(s) by not taking breaks or by re-arranging breaks or by the
teacher staying after the period to consult with any student(s) shall not constitute
an additional teaching contact hour.
11.01 D 1 Weekly hours for preparation shall be attributed to the teacher in accordance with
the following formula:
TYPE OF COURSE RATIO OF ASSIGNED TEACHING CONTACT HOURS
TO ATTRIBUTED HOURS FOR PREPARATION
New 1 : 1.10
Established A 1 : 0.85
Established B 1 : 0.60
Repeat A 1 : 0.45
Repeat B 1 : 0.35
Special A as indicated below
Special B as indicated below
12
11.01 D 2 No more than four different course preparations shall be assigned to a teacher in a
given week except by voluntary agreement which shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
D 3 For purposes of the formula:
"New" refers to the first section of a course which the teacher is
(3) teaching for the first time. (This definition does not apply to a new full-
time teacher who has previously taught the course as a Partial-Load,
Sessional or Part-time employee, nor to courses designated as "Special"
as defined below); or
(3) teaching for the first time since a major revision of the course or
curriculum has been approved by the College.
"Established A" refers to the first section of a course which the teacher has
previously taught but not within the previous three academic years.
"Established B" refers to the first section of a course which the teacher has
taught within the previous three academic years.
Where a non-language course is to be taught in more than one language the
first section taught in a second language shall be regarded as "New" or
"Established".
"Repeat A" refers to another section which the teacher is teaching concurrently with the same
course for which hours of preparation have been
13
attributed under "New" or "Established", but to students in a different
program or year of study.
"Repeat B" refers to another section which the teacher is teaching
concurrently with the same course for which hours of preparation have been
attributed under "New" or "Established" or "Repeat A" to students in the same
program and year of study.
"Special A" refers to sections of courses in which students may enter on a
continuous intake basis or courses which have been organized into
individualized self-learning packages.
The first section of a "Special A" course which the teacher has not taught
before or which the teacher has not taught within the previous three
academic years attracts the numerical value in "Established A" (1:0.85).
The first section of a "Special A" course which the teacher has taught within
the previous three academic years attracts the numerical value in "Established
B" (1:0.60).
Repeat sections of a "Special A" course attract the numerical value in "Repeat
A" (1:0.45).
"Special B" refers to preparation for sections of a course in which the
objectives describe the students' application of knowledge in actual work
settings.
The first section of a "Special B" course which the teacher has not taught
before or which the teacher has not taught within the previous three
academic years attracts the numerical value in "Established A" (1:0.85).
The first section of a "Special B" course which the teacher has taught within
the previous three academic years attracts the numerical value in "Established
B" (1:0.60).
Repeat sections of a "Special B" course attract the numerical value in "Repeat
B" (1:0.35).
Additional time necessary to arrange and prepare for student placement in
such learning situations shall be attributed on an hour for hour basis and
recorded on the Standard Workload Form (SWF), as referred to in 11.02.
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 recorded on the SWF.
14
11.01 E 1 Weekly hours for evaluation and feedback in a course shall be attributed to a teacher
in accordance with the following formula:
RATIO OF ASSIGNED TEACHING CONTACT HOURS
TO ATTRIBUTED HOURS FOR EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK
Essay or project Routine or Assisted In-Process
1:0.030 1:0.015 1:0.0092
per student per student per student
E 2 For purposes of the formula:
() "Essay or project evaluation and feedback" is grading:
–essays
–essay type assignments or tests
–projects; or
– student performance based on behavioral assessments compiled by the
teacher outside teaching contact hours.
() "Routine or assisted evaluation and feedback" is grading by the teacher
outside teaching contact hours of short answer tests or other evaluative tools
where mechanical marking assistance or marking assistants are provided.
() "In-process evaluation and feedback" is evaluation performed within the
teaching contact hour.
() Where a course requires more than one type of evaluation and feedback, the
teacher and the supervisor shall agree upon a proportionate attribution of
hours. If such agreement cannot be reached the College shall apply
evaluation factors in the same proportion as the weight attached to each type
of evaluation in the final grade for the course.
11.01 E 3 Before the method(s) of evaluation and feedback are established for a course, the
supervisor will consult with the affected teachers, as a group. Normally, the group
will consist of the teachers working within the affected program. The group may
consist of teachers teaching a course that is being taught across programs.
If only one teacher is assigned to a program, that teacher shall be deemed to be “the group” for purposes of this Article.
11.01 E 4 The number of students in a course or section shall be determined initially by the
College's planning estimates and recorded on the SWF as provided for in 11.02.
15
The number of students in a course or section 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.
The number of students in a continuous intake program, course or section shall be
reviewed every three months at the request of either the College or the teacher and
determined as the weighted average of the number of students formally registered
over the duration of the program, course or section. The weighted average shall be
calculated by summing the number of formally registered students in each week of
the program, course or section and then dividing the sum by the number of weeks
in the duration of the program, course or section.
11.01 F 1 Complementary functions appropriate to the professional role of the teacher may be
assigned to a teacher by the College. Hours for such functions shall be attributed on
an hour for hour basis.
An allowance of a minimum of six hours of the 44 hour maximum weekly total
workload shall be attributed as follows:
four hours for routine out-of-class assistance to individual students
two hours for normal administrative tasks.
The teacher shall inform his/her students of availability for out-of-class assistance in
keeping with the academic needs of students.
11.01 F 2 The attribution of four hours of out-of-class assistance for students may not be
sufficient where a teacher has unusually high numbers of students in his/her total
course load. When a teacher who has more than 260 students in his/her total
course load considers that he/she will not have sufficient time to provide
appropriate levels of out-of-class assistance, the teacher will discuss the issue with
his/her supervisor. Possible means of alleviating the concern should be considered
such as additional types of assistance being provided or additional hours being
attributed. Failing agreement on how to best manage the situation the teacher shall
be attributed an additional 0.015 hour for every student in excess of 260.
11.01 G 1 Where preparation, evaluation, feedback to students and complementary functions
can be appropriately performed outside the College, scheduling shall be at the
discretion of the teacher, subject to the requirement to meet appropriate deadlines
established by the College.
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.
11.01 H 1 The College shall allow each teacher at least ten working days of professional
development in each academic year.
16
11.01 H 2 Unless otherwise agreed between the teacher and the supervisor, the allowance of
ten days shall include one period of at least five consecutive working days for
professional development.
11.01 H 3 The arrangements for such professional development shall be made following
discussion between the supervisor and the teacher subject to agreement between
the supervisor and the teacher, and such agreement shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
11.01 H 4 The employee may be reimbursed for costs associated with such professional
development, as approved by his/her supervisor or other body established by the
College to deal with allocating resources made available for this purpose.
I Teaching contact hours for a teacher in post-secondary programs shall not exceed 18 in
any week. Teaching contact hours for a teacher not in post-secondary programs
shall not exceed 20 in any week.
11.01 J 1 Notwithstanding the above, overtime worked by a teacher shall not exceed one
teaching contact hour in any one week or three total workload hours in any one
week and shall be voluntary.
11.01 J 2 Such teaching contact hour agreed to in excess of the respective weekly teaching
contact hour maximum shall be compensated at the rate of 0.1% of annual regular
salary. Such workload hours agreed to in excess of the 44 hour weekly workload
maximum shall be compensated at the rate of 0.1% of annual regular salary. Such
overtime payments shall be for the greater amount but shall not be pyramided.
11.01 J 3 All such voluntary overtime agreements, which shall not be unreasonably withheld,
shall be set out in writing on the SWF for that period by the College and filed with
the teacher and the Union Local within ten days.
11.01 J 4 Probationary teachers shall not be assigned teaching contact hours or total workload
hours in excess of the maxima under any circumstances.
11.01 K 1 Contact days (being days in which one or more teaching contact hours are assigned)
shall not exceed 180 contact days per academic year for a teacher in post-
secondary programs or 190 contact days per academic year for a teacher not in
post-secondary programs.
11.01 K 2 Weekly contact hours assigned to a teacher by the College may be scheduled into
fewer than five contact days and such compressed schedule shall be deemed to be
five contact days.
11.01 K 3 Teaching contact hours shall not exceed 648 teaching contact hours per academic
year for a teacher in post-secondary programs or 760 teaching contact hours per
academic year for a teacher not in post-secondary programs.
11.01 K 4 Compensation for work in excess of the maxima set out above shall be paid by the
College to the teacher on the basis of:
17
1/180 or 1/190 respectively of the teacher's annual regular salary for each
contact day in excess of the 180 or 190 contact day annual maximum;
0.1% of the teacher's annual regular salary for each teaching contact hour in
excess of the 648 or 760 teaching contact hour annual maximum.
Such compensation shall be for the greatest amount and shall not be pyramided
under this clause or under 11.01 J.
11.01 L 1 The contact day shall not exceed eight hours from the beginning of the first assigned
hour to the end of the last assigned hour except by written voluntary agreement.
The Union Local shall receive a copy of such agreement within seven days.
11.01 L 2 Every effort shall be made to ensure that work will not be assigned to begin less than
12 hours after the end of the previous day's work assignment.
11.01 L 3 A teacher shall not normally be assigned work on calendar Saturdays or Sundays.
Where a teacher is assigned to work on a Saturday or Sunday, the teacher shall be
credited with one and one-half times the credit hours normally given for hours so
assigned and attributed.
11.01 L 4 A teacher may agree in writing to waive the premium credits provided for in 11.01 L 3 for a specified period of time.
M Where a Union Local and a College agree in writing on terms governing workload
assignments at the College, such agreements shall be binding on the College, the
Union Local and the teachers and timetables shall be established in accordance with
such local agreements.
A 1 15. Prior to the establishment of a total workload for any teacher the supervisor shall
discuss the proposed workload with the teacher and complete the SWF, attached as
Appendix I, to be provided by the College. The supervisor shall give a copy to the
teacher not later than six weeks prior to the beginning of the period covered by the
timetable excluding holidays and vacations. It is recognized that if the SWF is
subsequently revised by the College, it will not be done without prior consultation
with the teacher.
15. The College may, where a change in circumstances requires it, amend assignments
provided to a teacher after the original assignment, subject to the teacher's right to
refer any matter to the College Workload Monitoring Group (WMG) referred to in
B 1 and if necessary, the Workload Resolution Arbitrator (WRA) referred to in
E 1 and appointed under 11.02 F 1.
11.02 A 2 The SWF shall include all details of the total workload including teaching contact
hours, accumulated contact days, accumulated teaching contact hours, number of
sections, type and number of preparations, type of evaluation/feedback required by
the curriculum, class size, attributed hours, contact days, language of instruction
and complementary functions.
18
11.02 A 3 Following receipt of the SWF, the teacher shall indicate in writing on the SWF
whether in agreement with the total workload. If not in agreement the teacher and
the supervisor may add such other comments as is considered appropriate and may
indicate in writing that the workload should be reviewed by the College WMG.
11.02 A 4 In the event that the teacher is not in agreement with the total workload and wishes
it to be reviewed by the WMG, the teacher must so indicate in writing to the
supervisor within five working days following the date of receipt of the SWF. The
completed SWF will be forwarded by the supervisor to the WMG within three
working days from date of receipt from the teacher with a copy to be given to the
teacher.
Absent such indication, the teacher shall be considered to be in agreement with the
total workload.
11.02 A 5 The timetable shall set out the schedule and location of assigned workload hours
reported on the SWF, on a Timetable Form to be provided by the College, and a
copy shall be given to the teacher no less than two weeks prior to the beginning of
the period covered by the timetable, which shall be the same period as that covered
by the SWF.
11.08 In keeping with the professional responsibilty 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.
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.
19
APPENDIX B
THE JURISPRUDENCE
Cited by the Union
1. Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology and OPSEU, Re, 1991 Carswell
Ont 7602, 22 CLAS 445
2. Ontario Public Service Employees Union c. Sault College (Griefs de Heggart, Thiel et
S. Verma), Arbitre M.G. Mitchnick, April 30 1993
3. Durham College of Applied Arts and Technology c. Ontario Public Service
Employees Union (Griefs de P. George et A. Youroukis), Arbitre S. Schiff,
October 11 1995;
4. Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning and OPSEU, Grievances of Rychlewski, Arbitre J. Devlin, November 1, 2005
5. Sault College and OPSEU, Union Grievance re training, May 12, 2005
Cited by the Employer
1. Loyalist College, Arbitration Award on Workload, G.A. Ketchson, July 7,1987;
2. Loyalist College, Arbitration Award on Workload, G.A. Wishart, July 16, 1987;
3. Loyalist College, Arbitration Award on Workload, E.J. Buckley, July 16 1987;
4. Centennial College, Arbitration Award on Workload, A.S. Cramm, April 24, 1987;
5. Loyalist College, Arbitration Award on Workload, Y. Bond, December 24,
1987;
6. Seneca College, Arbitration Award on Workload, T. Traves, May 11, 1987;
7. Seneca College, Arbitration Award on Workload, B. Reno, June 24, 1987;
8. Loyalist College of applies Arts and Technology c. Ontario Public Service Employees
Union, (Grief de P. Dockrill), J. Devlin, February 8, 1991;
9. Ontario Public Service Employees Union c. Sault College (Griefs de Heggart, Thiel et
S. Verma), M.G. Mitchnick, April 30, 1993;
20
10. Ontario Public Employees Union, Local 653 c. Northern College of Applied Arts and
Technologies, Arbitration Award on Workload, J. Morrison, September, 28, 1994;
11. Durham College of Applied Arts and Technology c. Ontario Public Service
Employees Union (Griefs de P. George et A. Youroukis), S. Schiff, Arbitrator,
October 11, 1995;
12. The Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning c. Ontario
Public Service Employees Union (Grief de G. Rychlewski), J. Devlin, Arbitrator,
November 1, 2005;
13. Confederation College, Arbitration Award on Workload, T. Wacyk, October 28,
2015;
14. Humber College, Arbitration Award on Workload, M. Naim, January 26, 2004.
15. Humber College, Arbitration Award on Workload, M. Naim, January 26,