HomeMy WebLinkAboutSzalwinski 21-06-18IN THE MATTER OF A
WORKLOAD GRIEVANCE
BETWEEN:
OPSEU LOCAL 560
-and-
SENECA COLLEGE
Regarding the Workload Complaint of
Professor Christopher Szalwinski
BEFORE: Kathleen G. O’Neil, Workload Resolution Arbitrator
For the Union: Keith Opatowski, Local 560 WMG Chair
Christopher Szalwinski, Grievor
Frank Yee, President, Local 560
Frank Skill, Local 560 WMG Member
Dan Janjic, Local 560 WMG member
Rose Perera, Local 560 Office Manager
For the College: Wallace Kenny, Counsel
Ted Bridge, Director, Employee & Labour Relations
Kathy Dumanski, Chair
Haseeb Wali, Human Resources Manager
A Hearing was held by videoconference on May 5, 2021
1
D E C I S I O N
This decision deals with the workload complaint of Professor Christopher Szalwinski,
claiming that the second and subsequent sections of a programming course should have
been assigned the preparation time factor “Repeat A” rather than “Repeat B”, as the
students come from two different programs. The employer is of the view that no
additional credit is required as the mix of students in the second section is not different
than that in the first.
Background – Facts and Positions
In his SWF for the period May 17 to June 25, 2021, Professor Szalwinski was assigned
a number of lecture and lab sections of a programming course taught to a mix of
students in two-year and three-year programs of study. The three-year program,
Computer Programming and Analysis [CPA] has an additional year of study than the
two-year program in Computer Programming. The first two years of both programs have
the same courses. The course here in question is required for both programs, a nd is
taught to students who are all in their third semester. Those who are eligible and
interested may go on to complete the third year of study and obtain an advanced
diploma, which may allow for more academic and career options than a two-year
diploma. As Professor Szalwinski demonstrated, those students interested in the longer
program are likely to be better students, in the sense of being more interested in, and
better able to handle, the more advanced portions of the subject matter, and therefore
apt to receive better grades.
The basic curriculum, as described in the course outline, delivered to all students in the
same course, does not differ. Professor Szalwinski noted that if he did not have a mix of
students from the two programs, his lesson plans would be different, and he would
stress different things. Although that is not the case with the current mix of students, he
does spend additional time and attention with the students who will be continuing on to
the third year, especially in terms of feedback and advice. This requires different
preparation so that he is able to direct them to extra work, such as optional sections in
the course notes, advise them about the third year, direct them to resources outside the
college, and generally be aware of the wider industry environment.
2
There is a separate coordinator for each of the two programs, which the union sees as
indicative of the fact that they should be considered to be distinct programs for the
purposes of the attribution of preparation time under Article 11.01 D3 (v) and (vi).
By contrast, the employer’s perspective is that the mix of students is the same in all
sections of the course, and therefore the attribution was correct. While acknowledging
that some of the students will go on to the third year, and thus be in a different program,
the employer stresses that the curriculum is the same, as is the course outline and
lesson plans, for all the sections here in issue.
Considerations and Conclusions
The main provisions of the workload formula at play here are the following:
11.01 D 3 For purposes of the formula:
(i) "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 fulltime
teacher who has previously taught the cou rse as a Partial-Load,
Sessional or Part-time employee, nor to courses 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.
(ii) "Established A" refers to the first section of a course which the teacher has
previously taught but not within the previous three academ ic years.
(iii) "Established B" refers to the first section of a course which the teacher has
taught within the previous three academic years.
…
(v) "Repeat A" refers to another section which the teacher is teaching
concurrently with the same course for which hours of preparation have been
attributed under "New" or "Established", but to stud ents in a different
program or year of study.
(vi) "Repeat B" refers to another section which the teacher is teaching
concurrently with the same course for which hours of preparation have been
attributed under "New" or "Established" or "Repeat A" to students in the same
program and year of study.
3
As Workload Resolution Arbitrator McLean observed in the unreported decision
Sheridan College and Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 244 , [Workload
complaint of Sonia Persaud], dated June 21, 2016, the wording of the workload formula
presents interpretative challenges when the first section of a course has students from
more than one program in it, as it seems to be based on the premise that each section
contains students from one program. Although it is not binding of me, I find his solution
to the problem of courses with students from a mix of programs to be a sensible one. I
agree with that approach, and have applied it to the facts of Professor Szalwinski’s
situation. Arbitrator McLean’s approach was a purposive one, in light of what he found
to be the clear intent of the “Repeat A” and “Repeat B” categories of preparation
attribution. That is the idea that teachers will require less time to prepare for a course
when they are teaching more than one section of the same course at the same time
because preparation for one of the sections can be applied to the other section(s) of the
course being taught. As he observed:
… the Article recognizes that the “savings” in preparation time which arise out of
teaching more than one section of the course at the same time may be affected
by the characteristics of the students being taught. In particular, if the students
taught in the additional section of the course are in a “different” program or year
of study, then the article assumes that they will require different preparation than
the first section and increases the preparation time attribution accordingly for the
second section.
In this light, the question becomes whether Professor Szalwinski was required to teach a
second section to students in a different program or year of study, thus having the
potential to have more preparation for the second section of the course. From
everything put before me at the hearing, I find that, given that the mix of students is
basically the same in the first as in the second sections of the course in question, that
there was no breach of the workload formula in assigning “Repeat B” rather than and
“Repeat A”, for the required preparation. The students are in the same year of study,
and the divergence in the two programs has not crystallized by the third semester in
which the courses in question are situated. It makes sense that the advice and work
directed at the students with higher aptitude and ambitions for the subject matter and
subsequent careers would be different , than for those with less ability. However, it is not
my view that this is what the workload formula had in mind in distinguishing between
students in different programs.
4
Rather, it is my view that the intent was that more preparation time would be attributed
where the fact of students from different programs between sections required additional
preparation. In a communications course, for instance, one can imagine that if one
section was composed of students in a program oriented to the life sciences, while
another was composed of students in a program for legal assistants, the preparation of
writing assignments could be quite different. The situation here in issue, where there are
students all taking the same curricu lum, in tightly related programs, does not engage an
analogous difference in preparation for the two sections. The composition of students
does not vary between sections, only within each section. It is likely that any group of
students will have a mix of aptitudes and interest, and an experienced teacher like
Professor Szalwinski will be able to tailor his advice and assignments to challenge and
engage the higher performing among them. It is not my view that this is what was
intended by the definitions of Repeat “A ” and Repeat “B” in the workload formula.
In the result, I find no breach of the workload formula, and therefore, for the reasons set
out above, the workload complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 18th day of June, 2021.
Kathleen G. O’Neil, Workload Resolution Arbitrator