HomeMy WebLinkAboutMuecck & Eady-Maley 18-09-24IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, LOCAL 655 (the Union)
and
CAMBRIAN COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY (the College)
RE: WORKLOAD COMPLAINT OF FRANK MUECK AND MALEY-EADY (the grievors)
Appearing for the Union: Carolyn Gaunt and others
Appearing for the Employer: Wallace M. Kenny, Hicks Morley (and others)
Sole Arbitrator: Norm Jesin
Hearing Held: September 14, 2018
Decision Date: September 24, 2018
AWARD:
This is a workload resolution arbitration pursuant to Article 11 of the
collective agreement between the parties. There are two complaints, one filed by
each grievor. The two complaints raise a common issue. The grievors complain that
they were not given sufficient credit on their SWFs for evaluation in accordance
with Article 11.01 E 2 (i) of the collective agreement. The College contends that it
assigned an appropriate credit for the evaluation factor in accordance with a
consideration of ss. (i), (ii) and (iv) of Article 11.01 E 2.
The grievors were both assigned to teach foundational math courses. Mr.
Mueck was assigned to teach Math 1272, which counsel for the College described
as a “pre-trades” math courses designed to assist students in the trades program.
Ms. Maley-Eady was assigned to teach Math 1113 for students in the “pre-health”
program, a program which facilitates entry into various health programs offered by
the College. According to the College, the courses are simple courses teaching math
at a high school level. The College asserts that the tests given to students generally
require simple answers, usually short, and evaluation of those tests is fairly simple.
According to the Union the testing is more complicated than what is alleged by the
College and students must not only provide answers but also show the work relied
on to reach the answers. The teachers will have to mark not only the answers
themselves but also work leading to the answer. Often, the student will be able to
obtain partial marks for the work even where the answer is wrong.
The formula for crediting hours for evaluation is set out in Article 11.01
E 1 of the collective agreement. Under that provision a teacher is credited at a ratio
of 1:0.03 hours per student per week for courses requiring evaluation of “essay of
project”. Evaluation is set at a lower ratio of 1:015 for courses requiring evaluations
that are “routine or assisted”. The relevant terms set out in 11.01E 1 are more
particularly defined in Article 11.02 E as follows:
(i) “Essay or project evaluation and feedback is grading
- essays
- essay type assignments or tests
- projects; or
- student performance based on behavioural assignments
compiled by the teacher outside teaching contact hours
(ii) “Routine or assisted evaluation and feedback” is grading by the
teacher outside teaching contact hours of short answer tests or
other evaluation tools where mechanical marking assistance or
marking assistants are provided.
…
(iv) 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.
The parties were unable to agree on the rate of credit to be given for
evaluation in this case. The College noted that it has been attributing a blended
rate of 1:0225 to Math 1113 and a similar rate to Math 1275 for a number of years.
That rate is determined by giving partial credit for the evaluation required as “essay
or project” and partial credit for evaluation as “routine or assisted”. The blended
credit recognizes that some of the testing required simple short answers easy to
mark, but that some of the answers required were a bit more complicated. Still the
College insists that it was generous in its attribution. The Union insists that 0.3 is
the appropriate attribution as math is generally more complicated and the testing
given in these course justifies and “essay or project” level of evaluation under the
collective agreement.
The College called Joanne MacLellan, Dean of Skilled Trades, Engineering
Technology, Environment, as a witness. She became Dean in June of 2018. In 2009,
however she had been teaching in the pre-health program. She had designed the
course presently taught as Math 1113. In addition she had designed the tests which
are still being used in that course. The structure of the questions used in the course
taught by Ms. Maley-Eady are the same as those designed by Ms. MacLellan,
although the numbers used in the questions might change from test to test. Ms.
MacLellan had taught the course for 7-8 years after she had designed it.
Ms. MacLellan introduced an example of a previous test and explained that
most of the questions called for short and simple answers that were easy to mark.
Many of the questions provided 1 mark if the question was correctly answered and
the teacher simply had to “tick” if the answer was correct. Although she
acknowledged that there were some questions which were more complicated –
particularly in the bonus section, she maintained that most of the questions were
of the short answer variety. She further noted that although the students were
allotted one hour and fifty minutes to do the tests, many of the students were able
to complete the tests in less than half the time. In her view, it was appropriate for
the course to be given the blended weight for the evaluation factor and indeed it
had been given that factor from the time that she had designed and taught the
course since 2009. Ms. MacLellan testified that the higher rate of 0.3 was generally
appropriate for more difficult math courses requiring formulaic answers where the
work to be evaluated to obtain an answer was complicated and had to be shown in
detail.
Regarding Math 1272, Ms. MacLellan testified that she had not taught that
course. However, on reviewing one of the tests in that course, she noted that the
test was at least as simple as the tests in Math 1113. Indeed, the test in 1272 was
comprised primarily of a combination of short answer and multiple choice
questions.
The Union called Ms. Eady-Maley to provide evidence of her assessment of
the testing administered in Math 1113. Ms. Eady-Maley has been teaching at the
College since 2005 and she became full time in 2006. She has a Masters in
biochemistry and has taught biology and chemistry in pre-health. Some of the
courses she has taught had been credited at .03 for evaluation (including some
math courses outside pre-health) but in cross examination she acknowledged that
she had taught at least one chemistry course in pre-health at a 0.225 evaluation
factor.
Ms. Eady-Maley testified that in Math 1113 she administered 3 test and 5
quizzes to her students. She went through one of the sample tests from Math 1113.
She acknowledged that at least some of the questions required only short simple
answers, but she asserted that most of the questions were more complicated that
than. Indeed, she indicated that even for questions for which only one mark was
available she wanted to see the work leading to the answer, and she would give a
half mark for the work, even where the answer itself was wrong. She indicated that
when she was assigned 1113, she felt that a 0.3 evaluation factor was appropriate,
in line with other Math courses that she had taught.
In argument, the Union asserted that I should order a .03 evaluation factor
for both courses in line with other Math courses taught at the College so that the
these courses would receive equitable treatment with Math courses.
Counsel for the College submitted that not all Math courses are equal and
that a .03 is only appropriate for more complicated Math courses. He also noted
that these courses, along with other foundational math courses had obtained a
blended evaluation factor in the past. The College submitted a number of arbitral
authorities supporting the proposition that where some of the testing requires
simple answers easily marked, an credit of less than a .03 factor is appropriate. (See
for example Cambrian College, unreported, May 25, 1987 (Dean); Cambrian
College, unreported, August 2, 1992, (Hunault).)
After considering the evidence and submissions of the parties I am satisfied
that the testing in the courses under consideration is not sufficiently complicated
to warrant overturning the College’s determination of the blended evaluation
factor at issue. I accept the evidence of the College that the many of not most of
the testing required answers which were relatively short and easily marked. I
further note that it has been common to award a blended factor to courses of this
nature in the past, including the courses at issue.
For these reasons it is my determination that the blended factor assigned by
the College in each of the courses at issue was appropriate. The complaints are
therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of September, 2018.
______________________
Norm Jesin