HomeMy WebLinkAboutOpatowski 20-07-10
IN THE MATTER OF A WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
SENECA COLLEGE
(the “College”)
and
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 560
(the “Union”)
Workload Complaint of Professor Keith Opatowski
Workload Resolution Arbitrator: Elizabeth McIntyre
Appearances
For the College: Wallace Kenny, Hicks Morley Barristers & Solicitors
Suzanne Abraham, Chair Faculty of Applied Arts & Health
Science
Ted Bridge, Director Employee & Labour Relations
Haseeb Wali, Coordinator Employee & Labour Relations
For the Union: Keith Opatowski, Complainant
Frank Yee, President OPSEU 560
Matt Cohen, Office Manager OPSEU
The matters in dispute proceed to hearing on July 8, 2020
2
1. On June 23rd 2020 I was appointed by the Ministry of Labour to act as a Workload
Resolution Arbitrator ("WRA") as provided for in Article 11.02 F3 of the collective
agreement between the parties.
2. There is no dispute between the parties that I have jurisdiction to determine the
complaint of Keith Opatowski. He objects to his fall 2020 workload assignment. The
College maintains that the assignment complies with the collective agreement
formula and is within its authority to assign.
3. A hearing regarding Mr. Opatowski’s case took place on July 8th during which the
Union put forward several alternative solutions to address Mr. Opatowski’s
concerns. Unfortunately, the matter could not be resolved between the parties
leaving me with the task of doing so. After careful consideration of all of the
evidence and submissions of the parties, I have determined that Mr. Opatowski’s
complaint should be dismissed. This determination is made without precedent or
prejudice to any other matter between the parties. In accordance with Article 11.02
F 7 the collective agreement what follows is a brief explanation of the reasons for
my decision.
4. Mr. Opatowski’s complaint concerns the workload set out in his Standard Workload
Form (SWF) for the September to December 2020 (fall) semester which is
reproduced below.
3
5. There is no dispute between the parties that, taking into account, the amount of Mr.
Opatowski’s time purchased by the Union, the total workload that could be assigned
to the complainant is 40.50 hours per week. Accordingly, his fall SWF is compliant
with this limit. However, Mr. Opatowski raised a number of concerns with the hours
as designated. These will be dealt with in turn.
PREPERATION TIME
6. Mr. Opatowski asserted that the preparation time allocated for SPS120NDD(“120”)
is inadequate based on a number of factors. Although he has previously taught
SPS110NCC(“110”) a course entitled Strategic Problem Solving, the newly
numbered course, also called Strategic Problem Solving, has an additional
component related to project management, which Mr. Opatowski has not previously
taught and for which he will need time to prepare. Secondly, the 120 course has
three teaching content hours rather than the two hours designated for 110. Thirdly,
4
120 will be taught entirely online rather than in class as was done before the Covid
19 pandemic. As a result of the pandemic, teaching at Seneca was transitioned to
an online format in March of 2020. Mr. Opatowski taught part of the 110 course
online in the spring and summer. However, he asserted that he will need additional
time to prepare to teach the entire 120 course online. A fourth change is the
condensing of the fall teaching semester from 14 weeks to 12 weeks. Mr. Opatowski
asserted that additional preparation time will be required to teach the material in this
condensed time frame.
7. The newly numbered course 120 has been categorized as a new (“N”) type, the
category allocated the highest amount of preparation time provided for under Article
11.01 D 1. As a result, the preparation time attributed on the SWF for the revised
course is 3.3 hours a week rather than the 1.7 hours attributed for the predecessor
110 course on Mr. Opatowski’s summer SWF.
8. As has been established in a number of prior decisions, the formula which the
parties have agreed upon as set out in Article 11.01 D 1 and which has remained
unchanged for a number of years is not designed to calibrate the actual preparation
time required for a particular course. As was stated by Kathleen O’Neil in Algonquin
College January 29, 2003:
The problem, however, is the structure of the workload formula. It is
designed as a rough average over the whole spectrum of over twenty
colleges, the dozens of programs that each of them provides and the
countless variations in experience and preparedness of thousands of
professors. It was simply not designed to calibrate the time needed for
each individual professor to be prepared at the ideal level. The Union
argues that there are ways to attribute the time requested within the
parameters of the workload formula, such as Article 11.01F which
provides for complementary functions, and 11.01 G 2, the atypical
circumstances clause. I have considered the option of complementary
hours to address the entirely credible situation described by Ms. Sumitro,
but I do not find that the circumstances presented in evidence are really
atypical. Many programs are in a state of continual development because
of various external and internal change processes. It is not part of the
design of the workload formula, in my view, to use complementary hours,
5
and the atypical circumstances clause, as a tool to adjust individual
SWF’s (sic) to record the actual hours spent by individual professors.
9. Had Mr. Opatowski’s SWF designated the 120 course as a type other than N there
may have been merit in his position. However, given that Mr. O has been allocated
the maximum preparation time provided by the collective agreement, there is no
basis on which to find that the time allocated under Article 11.01 D 1 is
inappropriate. This is the case, whether or not the time allocated is reflective of the
actual time that may be required to prepare to teach this particular class.
10. The Union argued that, additional hours should be allocated to Mr. Opatowski under
Article 11.01 G2 because of the atypical circumstances arising in this case and in
particular the transition to online teaching and the condensed time frame for delivery
of the courses. The Union also argued that, given these circumstances, Mr.
Opatowski should be credited with additional complementary hours as assigned
under 11:01 D, F or G. I do not agree. As was held by Arbitrator O’Neil in Algonquin
College (supra) neither the complementary hours clause nor the atypical
circumstances clause are to be used to adjust the allocated hours formula to reflect
the actual hours of preparation required in an individual case.
11. Furthermore, the changes resulting from COVID 19 apply across the College and
are not unique to Mr. Opatowski. The College has designated complementary hours
to all teachers to recognize the impact of these changes. In a memo to faculty
Laurel Schollen, the vice-president Academic for the College, stated:
[…] in light of President Agnew’s announcement of the Au Large project
and its emphasis on innovation, for the fall 2020 term, we will be adding
two complementary hours to all faculty SWFs. This additional time takes
into consideration the innovative solutions needed to support our
students and respond to any new and emerging issues/work related to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
12. The additional two hours, which were not included in Mr. Opatowski’s SWF for
either the spring or summer semester, are reflected in his fall SWF under
6
“Complementary Hours Allowance”. The union has not established that further
complementary hours are required.
13. Mr. Opatowski provided his SWF from the summer of 2019 in which he was
assigned 20 additional complementary hours for learning the pre-requisite courses
for SEC625, a course which he was to teach in the following semester. The
circumstances here are distinct from that situation in which functions additional to
the teaching of SEC625 were recognized by the College. There is no evidence in
this case that Mr. Opatowski has been assigned additional functions that are
complementary to the courses he is assigned to teach.
14. Finally, with respect to the preparation time required by Mr. Opatowski to teach the
assigned courses, the Union relied on Article 11.01 D 3 (ix). Given that there is no
evidence that he was assigned either curriculum review or course development, as
he was in his SWF for the fall semester of 2018, this Article has no application in this
case.
COURSE EVALUATION FEEDBACK
15. The Union also raised issues regarding the type of evaluation attributed to both the
courses assigned to Mr. Opatowski on his SWF. The type of evaluation attributed to
a course is established by the College in accordance with Article 11.01 E in
consultation with the affected teachers. The type of evaluation as recorded on the
SWF is identical for all faculty teaching that course. Very little evidence was
provided regarding how evaluation is actually carried out in either of the courses
assigned to Mr. Opatowski.
16. The breakdown of evaluation types for the 120 course is the same as it was for the
110 course, a breakdown that was accepted by Mr. Opatowski in prior semesters.
Mr. Opatowski however, now questions how any in-process evaluation can be done
7
with an online course. The collective agreement defines “In-process evaluation and
feedback” as “evaluation performed within the teaching contact hour” not within the
classroom. As the teaching contact hours will be done online it follows that some in-
process evaluation can also take place within the teaching contact hours. There is
no evidence that such evaluation will or will not take place.
17. A review of prior SWFs shows no changes in the type of evaluation designated to
the SEC625NAA course over the last several semesters. This designation was also
accepted by the complainant. Mr. Opatowski however, now asserts that there is no
in-process evaluation in this course. He explained that, even though students do in
class (and online) presentations, the evaluation of these presentations take place on
his time outside the class. Given that in class presentations do occur I am not
persuaded that a 10% allocation for in process evaluation is incorrect.
CONCLUSION
18. I conclude that the Complainant’s workload assignment for Fall 2020 is not in
violation of the provisions of Article 11. His workload complaint is therefore
dismissed.
Dated in Prince Edward County, Ontario, this 10th day of July, 2020
Elizabeth McIntyre, Workplace Resolution Arbitrator