Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMohanty 21-01-11IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 14 OF THE COLLEGES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2008, S.O. 2008, CHAPTER 15 B E T W E E N: NORTHERN COLLEGE (the “College”) - and - ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 653 (the “Union”) RE: WORKLOAD COMPLAINT OF RAJENDRA MOHANTY A W A R D Paula Knopf - Arbitrator Appearances: For the College: Tim Liznick, Counsel Glen McDougall Dean Lessard Sarah Campbell For the Union: Rajendra Mohanty Kathy Smith Neil McNair Warren Schaffer Teena Bales Clint Sheehan The hearing of this matter was conducted by way of Videoconferencing on January 5, 2021. 1 This is a workload complaint filed pursuant to Article 11 of the Collective Agreement, asserting that 4.5 hours per week should be added to Professor Mohanty’s September- December (Fall) 2020 Standard Workload Form (SWF) as “complementary hours”. Professor Mohanty contends that the SWF does not take into account the additional work that was necessary to effectively deliver courses “in the current pandemic times”. To be clear, Professor Mohanty does not base his claim on the fact that course delivery has been changed from in-class to electronic delivery methodology due to the Covid-19 pandemic. His claim is focused on the fact that he found himself having to provide extra academic assistance to nine of his 54 students who were taking the Marketing course remotely from their homes in India. Professor Mohanty explained in detail the challenges those students encountered, including their unfamiliarity with Marketing concepts, their lack of knowledge about how to complete a Marketing assignment, their lack of understanding with respect to plagiarism and copyright rules, and their difficulties preparing Marketing presentations. Further, the students in India encountered particular problems accessing and/or purchasing the required textbooks. To address all these challenges, Professor Mohanty spen t considerable time trying to ensure that these students would succeed. This involved him taking into consideration the different time zones between Ontario and India, there being a 9½ - 10 ½ hour differential that meant that he often had to work beyond what he called his “regular 8-hour day”. He created a “WhatsApp” group for the students in India, set up pre -arranged Zoom video conference meetings and arranged a mentorship program, pairing successful students from previous years with the struggling students in India. He also set up videoconferencing meetings with the offshore students every weekend to address course content and their individual issues or questions. This alone involved 1 ½ hours each weekend. He estimated that he spent close to three more hours each week addressing other aspects of the offshore students’ needs. He also spent another 30 minutes a week giving extra support to his offshore students in the Organizational Behaviour course. Professor Mohanty pointed to correspondence he sent to Dean Lessard outlining all this work and the Dean’s response saying, “Thank you for sharing these best practices. It 2 certainly provides some food for thought”. Professor Mohanty interpreted this to be an endorsement of his efforts and an acknowledgement that he was doing extra work to ensure student success. As a result, Professor Mohanty, with his Union’s support, argued that six hours on his SWF for “complementary functions” is insufficient to reflect the amount of out-of-class work he did to meet the academic needs of his students. The College’s response acknowledged the value of Professor Mohanty’s dedication to student success, particularly with respect to the offshore students. However, it was stressed that Dean Lessard’s email did not imply an agreement to any increase in allocation of “complementary function” hours. In fact, the College challenged the complaint on several levels. First, the College alleged that the complaint is untimely under Article 11 because Professor Mohanty agreed to the Fall 2020 SWF on May 22, 2020. He did not file a Workload Complaint Form until October 2, 2020, the day after his SWF was altered to reflect the reduction in student enrollment. The College asserted that the edited SWF does not give rise to a fresh opportunity to complain. Further, the College contended that the challenges of teaching the offshore students were not unique to this Professor. It was pointed out that the College has a number of international students, particularly in the Business Program. It was said that any reasonable faculty member could or should have foreseen the fact that students would return to their homes when in-person classes were cancelled and the College transitioned to entirely remote learning methodologies in March 2020. Given the public knowledge about the Covid-19 pandemic and the travel bans in the Spring of 2020, it was said that everyone was aware that many of the College’s students would not be able to return to Ontario after they returned to their homes. Further, it was said that Professor Mohanty and many other faculty members were engaged in remote teaching with students from across Canada and around the globe since the Spring of 2020. It was stressed that Professor Mohanty was allocated the same number of hours for “complementary functions” under Article 11.01 F 1 as all other faculty members and was 3 not in any unique situation. Accepting that Professor Mohanty accommodated his offshore students by making himself available at hours that were comfortable for them , but outside Ontario’s regular work hours, the College stressed that international students are told that they are expected to make themselves available within the College’s local time frame. The fact that Professor Mohanty went above and beyond what was expected of him was commended. However, it was stressed that this was not necessary or expected. It was also stressed that Professor Mohanty could have relied more on the College’s International Student Advisors to assist the offshore students with their academic challenges and he could have had the Learning Centre help them get access to the course materials. It was said that it is not uncommon in any year to have difficulties providing enough textbooks and materials to students, whether they are on campus or involved in remote learning. Therefore, it was stressed that Professor Mohanty did not have to shoulder so much of the burden himself and that he could have referred many of these problems to others to handle. The Union and Professor Mohanty responded to the College’s contentions by first asserting that the complaint is timely because it was lodged within 14 days of him becoming aware of the extra out-of-class academic assistance that the off-shore students needed. It was also asserted that the International Student Advisors were not equipped to deal with some of his students’ problems and often referred the students back to Professor Mohanty for help. He provided an example of a Student Academic Success Advisor referring an issue back to him. The Union contended that it is unfair to expect so much of a professor, to complement him on his extra efforts but to fail to take this into consideration when allotting the number of hours for out-of-class assistance on the SWF. 4 The Decision Although the College asserted that the complaint is untimely, I decline to rule on that issue. Instead, I shall address the merits because they are far more important and because the following decision makes the timeliness issue moot. I am very sympathetic with Professor Mohanty’s situation. He, like so many other faculty members, had to adapt quickly to the challenges that Covid -19 posed. He did this successfully in the Winter 2020 semester and was determined to do so again in the Fall 2020. The only difference in the Fall and Winter semesters was that he discovered that nine students were taking his Marketing course from their homes in India. They encountered academic and practical challenges that demanded more time than Professor Mohanty had anticipated and, apparently, more time than what was required to assist other students who were also taking the course remotely. The relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement are: 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. Professor Mohanty’s SWF attributed six hours for complementary functions. While this was the “minimum”, it was also that same allocation that every other professor received at this College. As everyone in the College sector understands, the workload formula is an agreed-upon “construct” that may, or may not, reflect the actual number of hours that any given professor dedicates to each factor. There is no question that Professor 5 Mohanty does what almost all faculty members do; they devote the time that is required to optimize their students’ chances of academic and personal success. This often includes providing academic and personal out-of-class assistance above and beyond the allocation in Article 11.01 F 1. I can also accept that there are particular challenges involved in assisting offshore students who have to deal with time-zone differences, let alone having to adapt to new modes of learning and new course materials and/or academic expectations. However, nothing in the evidence and submissions before me establish that Professor Mohanty’s situation was unique. Nor is there evidence to support the conclusion that the finalized Fall 2020 SWF posed different demands than the original, or indeed from his responsibilities during the previous term. On-line teaching, whether it is for a student in Timmins, Toronto, Truro or New Delhi, is hard work. The location of the student(s) cannot, in itself, imply the need to vary the out-of-class allocation of hours. Accordingly, while I have immense respect for Professor Mohanty’s dedication to his students, I cannot conclude that this situation warrants the allocation of additional hours to his Fall 2020 SWF. As a result, the workload complaint is dismissed. Dated at Toronto this 11th day of January, 2021 ___________________________ Paula Knopf - Arbitrator