HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrown 20-05-251
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, LOCAL 242 (the Union)
and
GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE (the College)
RE: WORKLOAD COMPLAINT JEFF BROWN (the complainant)
Appearing for the Union: Lesley Gilchrist and others
Appearing for the Employer: Timothy P. Liznick, Hicks Morley (and others)
Sole Arbitrator: Norm Jesin
Hearing Held: May 15, 2020
Decision Date: May 25, 2020
2
AWARD:
This is a workload complaint filed pursuant Article 11 of the collective agreement. The
grievor asserts that the course he is to teach in May-June of 2020 in ESL should have designated
on his SWF as a “new” course in accordance with Article 11.01 D 3 (i) of the collective agreement.
That article provides as follows:
“New” refers to the first section of a course which the teacher is
- 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 a course designated as “Special” as defined
below); or
- teaching for the first time since a major revision of the course or curriculum
has been approved by the College
A designated as “new” attracts a greater entitlement to preparatory hours than courses not so
designated. The facts giving rise to the dispute are as follows:
The Complainant teaches a level 8 course in English as a Second Language or ESL. There
are 9 levels in the program and the students advance from level 1 to level 9. Each course is
approximately 8 weeks in duration and is comprised of 4 four hour sessions resulting in 16
teacher contact hours per week.
In or about or about the middle of March, 2020, the College suspended all in person
classes due to the onset of the Covid 19 pandemic and teachers were asked to deliver the
remainder of their courses online. At the time, the complainant had completed 2 weeks of an 8
3
week session for ESL level 8 for March-April, 2020. The course was completed online without
incident and to his (and the Union’s) credit, the complainant agreed to complete the session
without complaint. The complainant was next assigned to deliver a level 8 course for May -June,
2020, to commence on May 19, 2020. When the complainant completed reviewed his SWF he
sought an alteration of his SWF pursuant to Article 11, to designate the May-June course as a
“new” course. In the complainant’s view the change in the mode of delivery of the course from
in person to online required a “major revision” of the course within the meaning of Article 11.03
D (i). As a result, the complainant believed his SWF should be credited with an additional 8 hours
for preparation.
The College notified the complainant that he could use the non-teaching period from the
end of the March-April session to the commencement of the May session to make such
preparations for online delivery as he saw fit. In addition, the College had decided to add an
additional 6 complementary hours per week to the complainant’s SWF. However, the College
was of the view that the course being delivered online is the essentially the same course that the
grievor had previously delivered in class, and that there has not been a “major revision” of the
course.
At the hearing the complainant tried to explain how the course had cha nged as a result
of the change in the mode of delivery. He stated that in an in-person class he could engage with
the students spontaneously. He noted that this course was different than a lecture course in
which all he would have to do would be to deliver a lecture. As he was no longer able to engage
with the students in person, the complainant had to figure out a different way to reach his
students. In his words, he had to “reconceptualize what he was doing”.
4
The complainant referred to the Learning Plan for the March-April session as compared
with the Learning Plan for the May-June session. Although the plans appeared similar with similar
curriculum objectives the Plan for May-June reflected the complainants concerns regarding
alterations that might have to be made to ensure the success of online delivery.
The complainant also stated that he now had to add online literacy as a teaching
component to his course in order to ensure that all his students could fully participate in the
online sessions. The complainant also stated that previously he had prepared a “course pack”
with hard copies of materials that were made available for the students. In delivering an online
course he did not deliver the course pack. Rather he would need to determine what mate rials to
distribute digitally on an ongoing basis. The complainant also explained that in an in-person class
he could deal with a student’s reluctance to speak in class and assist and making the student able
to use his language orally. This had become a more difficult task in an online setting.
One major change noted by the complainant was that in the online course, the College
has set as a suggested guideline that each session would include 90 minutes of “synchronous”
instruction. In the in-person class there was no guideline has to how much time was to be spent
on “synchronous” instruction. The complainant also referred to difficulties arising from the fact
that the May June session was shortened from 8 weeks to 7 weeks (even shorter as a result of
statutory holidays). This particularly impacted the timelines for delivery of a research project
which was a regular part of the curriculum. In summary the complainant felt that it was
appropriate to assign a new “prep” factor to reflect the work necessary to adequately deliver the
course as an online course and to reflect the revision of the course to online.
5
The College asked Ana Petrunic, the Chair of the ESL program, the explain what the
College was trying to achieve through on line delivery of the courses. She indicated that faculty
was instructed to deliver the ESL program online becau se of the Covid pandemic. She insisted
however that the courses delivered in ESL were the same courses, with the same sought after
outcomes, whether delivered online or in-person. The curriculum was essentially unchanged. The
college accepted that there may have been some extra preparatory work necessary to deliver
the course online but that was accommodated by providing the complainant with the extra 6
complementary hours per week and in addition, allowing him to use the non -teaching period
prior to the commencement of the May-June session for any additional required preparation.
Ms. Petronic also noted that as there were only 10 students in the complainant’s session, those
additional hours could easily provide sufficient time to prepare for online delivery of the existing
course. Ms. Petronic also pointed out that prior to the next academic year the college intended
to review all aspects of the course to see if, in future, any significant revisions were warranted.
However, for May-June, it was determined that the existing course would be delivered online
without revision.
In argument the Union presented a number of cases which, although not directly on point,
all suggested in obiter that a change from in-person to online or hybrid (combination of online
and in-person) delivery could result a finding that a course has undergone a major revision
thereby resulting in the course being designated as “new”. See for example Niagara College, July
5, 2019 unreported, (Gedalof); Algonquin College, October 3, 2002, unreported, (O’Neil). The
Union noted that the changes to delivery coupled with changes to the schedule required the
6
complainant to make “major revisions” in preparing for delivery of the course and that his SWF
should recognize those revisions by designating the course as “new”.
The College constructed its position by asserting a number of principles including the
following:
1. A designation of a course as “new” is to be based not on what any individual does to
prepare the course, but rather on a theoretical construct.
2. A designation of a course as “new” requires both a major revision to the course and
additional work to prepare for the delivery of the revisions at issue. (See Re Cambrian
College and Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Unreported, December 12, 2008: S.
Moutsatsos, WRA); Niagara College (supra); Re Mohawk College and Ontario Public
Service Employees Union, Local 240, Unreported (October 19, 2011: H. Snow, WRA).
It was essentially, the Colleges position that the curriculum in the May-June session was the same
as the curriculum that had previously been taught by the complainant. The College did recognize
that some additional work was required to prepare for online delivery and the College was
prepared to recognize that fact by providing the complainant additional complementary hours
as well as the non-teaching period to prepare for delivery of the May June session. However,
according to the college, any additional preparation required did not meet the threshold required
to meet the definition of “major revision” set out in Article 11.01 D 3. (see Sheridan College, June
21, 2016, unreported. In that case the arbitrator st ated that a “major revision” must “be a
change, or collection of changes, so significant that it/they approximate(s) the course being
taught for the first time.”)
7
After reviewing the information provided by both parties, I am unable to conclude that
the grievor is delivering a “new” course for the May-June session of ESL level 8 within the
meaning of Article 11.01 D 3 of the collective agreement. I have no doubt tha t the change in
delivery presented challenges to the complainant in how to deliver the course. I accept that the
College tried to address those challenges by adding additional preparation time to the
complainant’s SWF and by providing time in the non -teaching period for extra preparation.
However, the information provided establishes that the curriculum that the complainant was
required to deliver online was essentially the same curriculum that he had previously delivered
in-person.
I do not discount that there may be circumstances in which a change in delivery from in-
person to online may in and of itself require revisions in course delivery that are significant
enough to warrant a new designation. Nor am I suggesting that any revisions must be meet the
test set out in Sheridan College before it can be designated as a “major revision”. Indeed, the
wording of Article 11.01 D 3 contemplates that a “new” designation may be awarded where there
are major revisions to the “course or curriculum”. That means that there may be changes to the
course required without changes to the curriculum. This conclusion is supported by the
comments in a number of cases provided by the Union.
In this case the information provided, although establishing some of the challenges arising
from online delivery, did not establish in any sufficient detail how the lesson plans, exercises,
evaluations, etc. were sufficiently different in this case so as to constitute a “major revision” to
the course. I note that the College has indicated that a full review of how the course is to be
delivered is to be undertaken for the next academic year and that that evaluation may result i n
8
major revisions being undertaken at that time. For the session at issue, however, I accept that
the College had requested simply that the course previously delivered in -person now be
delivered online as a result of the Covid pandemic. In these circumstan ces I cannot find that the
course being delivered by the complainant in the May June session is a “new” course.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of May, 2020.
______________________
Norm Jesin