HomeMy WebLinkAboutHamilton 21-06-18IN THE MATTER OF A
WORKLOAD GRIEVANCE
BETWEEN:
OPSEU LOCAL 560
-and-
SENECA COLLEGE
Regarding the Workload Complaint of
Professor Natalie Hamilton
BEFORE: Kathleen G. O’Neil, Workload Resolution Arbitrator
For the Union: Keith Opatowski, Local 560 WMG Chair
Natalie Hamilton, 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
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 Natalie Hamilton, a professor in the School of
English and Liberal Studies, contesting the assignment of work related to a faculty portfolio during
the summer of 2021 when she has been assigned teaching with a compressed schedule. The
employer is of the view that it was an appropriate assignment, and that there has been no breach
of the workload formula.
Factual Background
In late 2018, the Chair of the School of English and Liberal Studies wrote to the faculty in the
school, introducing the concept of a faculty portfolio, and asked each professor to start collecting
material for it. The employer wanted faculty members to collect documented evidence of teaching
from a variety of sources as a basis for a discussion with their Chair, intended as an initiative to
enhance the quality of teaching across the college. The College described it as a scholarly
activity to encourage experimentation, reflection, and development of a better understanding of
the next steps to improve the professor’s teaching skills. Faculty could choose a semester
between 2018 and 2022 to engage in discussion of the portfolio with the chair. In December
2018, the Chair circulated a schedule showing that Professor Hamilton would be scheduled for
this activity during the summer of 2021.
When Professor Hamilton received her SWF covering the period July 5, 2021 to August 13, 2021
it included an attribution of 2 hours of complementary functions related to the faculty portfolio, in
addition to the standard attribution for routine administrative tasks, out-of-class assistance to
students and covid-19 issues. It also reflected a compressed schedule for her teaching duties,
meaning that teaching usually done over a full semester would be compressed into 6 weeks for
the summer term. Professor Hamilton was not agreeable to the assignment of the faculty
portfolio, and would have preferred having been assigned additional students instead.
In some communications from the College, the portfolio was referred to as professional
development, or PD, and the suggestion was made that faculty working on preparing their
portfolios might use PD goals in the process.
Given the fact that Professor Hamilton was assigned two compressed courses in the summer of
2021, she found it stressful that she was expected to complete the faculty portfolio in the same
short time period, and was of the view that others had been afforded more time to prepare, and/or
were given more specific direction or communication about it.
2
Considerations and Conclusions
The union’s position is twofold, to the effect that firstly, a faculty portfolio is not an appropriate
assignment as a complementary function pursuant to Article 11.01 F1, as it does not appear in
the class description of a professor in the collective agreement. It is therefore not a function
appropriate to the professional role of the teacher, in the union’s view.
Secondly, if it is to be considered a form of professional development, arrangements for
completing it should be subject to the professor’s agreement, pursuant to Article 11.01 H3. Since
the professor did not agree to the arrangement, it should not have been assigned on her SWF. If
the portfolio is required during a period of teaching in the condensed format, the union argued
that the extra attribution should be 6 hours, rather than 2.
By contrast, the employer’s perspective is that the faculty portfolio was completely appropriate to
the professional functions of a professor, including those articulated in the Class Definition, such
as teaching, and providing a learning environment which makes effective use of available
resources. Further, portfolios were assigned to all faculty starting in 2018, and had not been
objected to prior to this workload complaint.
Employer counsel argues that this is effectively a request to change an assignment, something
not within the mandate of a Workload Resolution Arbitrator. Further, the assignment of
complementary functions is not required to be subject to the professor’s agreement. Counsel
notes that Professor Hamilton has known this was coming in the summer of 2021 since
December 2018. In any event, she is only being asked to spend the time allotted on her SWF,
which fits within the workload formula. There is no expectation that she spend more time that that
allotted on the SWF.
.
In reply, the union noted that faculty do self-reflective activities about their teaching as a regular
part of their professional lives, implying that the portfolio was not necessary to this end. Further,
this kind of assignment was characterized as a ‘slippery slope”, that it would be open to the
employer to assign anything as a complementary function, regardless of how it fit with the
professional functions of a teacher.
* * *
The most central provisions of the workload formula at play here are the following:
3
11.01 F 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.
…
11.01 H 1 The College shall allow each teacher at least ten working days of professional
development in each academic year.
11.01 H 2 Unless otherwise agreed between the teacher and the supervisor, the
allowance of ten days shall include one period of at least five consecutive w orking days
for professional development.
11.01 H3 The arrangements for such professional development shall be made following
discussion between the supervisor and the teacher, subject to agreement between the
supervisor and the teacher, and such agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Although it is understandable that Professor Hamilton would have preferred not to have been
assigned the work of the faculty portfolio during a period of compressed teaching, I do not find
that the assignment represented a breach of the workload formula. Further, I am not persuaded
that it falls outside the plain meaning of the phrase “complementary functions appropriate to the
professional role of the teacher” in Article 11.01 F, as discussed below.
It is true, as the union argued, that faculty portfolios are not mentioned in the class definitions
appended to the collective agreement. It is also true that the class definitions are general
summaries of duties, and are not structured to have the specificity of any given assignment.
Counsel for the employer noted that teaching duties and the creation of an effective learning
environment are mentioned in the class definition, and that the college’s intent in assigning the
faculty portfolio was to enhance those core duties of the faculty. Since the level of teaching skill
is integral to the professional role of a teacher, the content of the assignment is not a problematic
fit with the complementary functions article, in my view.
I have considered the union’s argument to the effect that the faculty portfolio is a form of
professional development, and therefore should be subject to the agreement of the professor as
to how it is arranged. It can be seen that the professional development time provided for in
Article 11.01 H1 through H3 is provided for separately in the workload formula than
complementary functions in Article 11.01 F1. I do not see any restriction in the workload formula
on the employer’s right to assign complementary functions that have a professional development
element to them, in addition to the time provided in Article 11.01 H1. Moreover, it can be seen
4
that the complementary function clause does not contain the same language relating to
agreement between the supervisor and teacher as does Article 11.01 H3. Therefore, I do not see
any breach of the workload formula in the fact that Professor Hamilton’s agreement was not
sought for the assignment of the faculty portfolio as a complementary function. This is particularly
true in a context where there was no suggestion that Professor Hamilton had not received her
proper amount of ten days for professional development under Article 11.01 H1 through H3.
As to the amount of time allotted, the College, through its counsel, has made it clear that
Professor Hamilton is free to spend only the time allotted on the her SWF for the summer of 2021
on the faculty portfolio assignment.
In the result, for the reasons set out above, I find no breach of the workload formula, so that the
workload complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 18th day of June, 2021.
Kathleen G. O’Neil, Workload Resolution Arbitrator