HomeMy WebLinkAboutBain 17-06-121
IN THE MATTER OF A WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATION:
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 415 (the Union)
AND
ALGONQUIN COLLEGE (the College)
RE: WORKLOAD COMPLAINT OF ROD BAIN (the grievor) dated May 24, 2017
Appearing for the Union: David Haley and others
Appearing for the Employer: Katherine Root and others
WRA: Norm Jesin
Hearing Held: May 29, 2017
Date of Decision: June 12, 2017
AWARD
This is a workload resolution arbitration filed pursuant to Article 11 of the collective
agreement between the parties. The Union claims that the grievor was not sufficiently credited
for hours in his SWF in the fall of 2017 and that he should be credi ted additional hours because
2
of atypical circumstances as contemplated in Article 11.01 G 2 of the collective agreement. The
facts giving rise to this dispute are as follows:
The grievor is a masonry professor who has been teaching since 2003. In the fall of 2017
the grievor was assigned to teach a masonry theory class with approximately 32 students. The
course was also comprised of 2 lab sections in addition to the theory component. The grievor
was assigned to teach one of those labs with 16 students and another teacher was assigned to
teach the other lab. In addition, the grievor was also assigned to teach a math course. In total the
grievor was credited with 42.10 hours on his SWF for the fall of 2017. The hours were comprised
of 15 teaching contact hours (the lab section alone is comprised of 10 teaching contact hours, 9.5
hours per preparation, 9.6 hours for evaluation, 6 hours for standard complementary allowance
under the collective agreement and an additional 2 complementary hours for participation on
the health and safety committee. This was short of the 44 hour maximum before overtime
becomes payable.
The Union asserts that in 2008, in similar circumstances the grievor received additional
5.7 hours credit for atypical circumstances and that in 2015 the grievor received 8.6 additional
hours. Those hours were not credited in 2017. The College responds that in previous years the
grievor was required to teach at least part of both sections of the lab and was therefore required
to prepare for and to evaluate students in both sections of the lab. In 2017 the grievor was
directed by the College that he no longer is to have any role in either the preparation or
evaluation of students in the lab which he was not teaching and his only responsibility was for
the lab that he was teaching.
3
The Union asserts that this assignment is inefficient and inequitable both for the grievor
and the students. Essentially, the Union proposes that the second lab should be reassigned so
that the grievor teaches and evaluates students in both labs and that he should be properly
credited for that reassignment. In order to facilitate this the College could reassign the grievor’s
math course to a different professor. In addition the grievor asserts that even under the present
assignment he should be credited for time needed to coordinate course study in the labs with
the other teacher and further, that he be credited for time needed to coordinate the delivery of
supplies with the shop technician.
I will begin with the Union’s assertion that the assignment of only one lab to the grievor
is inequitable and the request to reassign the teaching and evaluation in the second lab to the
grievor. The College has supplied a number of prior decisions in which a WRA has concluded that
although the collective agreement contemplates that the WMG may alter an inequitable
assignment, Article 11 does not provide the WRA with jurisdiction to make an alteration on that
basis. (See for example Niagara College, May 23, 2013 (Matthew Wilson)). I would add that
regardless of whether I retain such jurisdiction I would not find the assignment in question is
inequitable as alleged. Without teaching and evaluation of students in the second lab the Union
cannot establish that the workload is improperly credited or that the workload is too onerous.
Regarding the Union’s position regarding the failure to credit time for coordination, I
accept the College’s contention that the grievor is not required to provide any special
coordination or communication with the teacher of the other lab section other than that covered
by normal administrative tasks already covered in the categories credited.
4
I do however agree with the Union that a credit of one hour should be directed for special
communication and coordination with the shop technician. This work is required to assure the
smooth handling and storage of supplies and equipment delivered to the campus for the use and
benefit of the students. This is also an amount that has been credited in the past and I find it
appropriate to continue to credit it for the fall of 2017.
Having regard to the foregoing I direct that the grievor’s SWF be credited with an
additional hour for duties in relation to coordination and communication between the grievor
and the shop technician. The remainder of the claim is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of June, 2017
____________________
Norm Jesin, WRA