HomeMy WebLinkAboutChilton 21-11-02In the Matter of an Arbitration
Between:
DURHAM COLLEGE
(the College)
- and -
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION,
LOCAL 354
(the Union)
Re: SWF Referral – Workload Resolution Arbitration (Chilton)
A W A R D
Paula Knopf - Arbitrator
APPEARANCES:
For the College: Wallace Kenny, Counsel
Jennifer Cosway, Assistant VP of Human Resources
Rebecca Milburn, Executive Dean
Bonnie St. George, Associate VP, Academic (Administration)
For the Union: Benjamin Piper, Counsel
Kevin Griffin, Local President
Charlene Di Danieli
William Chilton, Grievor/Professor
Mike Keith, Program Coordinator & Trades Fundamentals Professor
The hearing of this matter was conducted by way of video-conference on
September 22 and October 25, 2021.
1
This case concerns the Union’s claim that the College has improperly attributed hours
for “evaluation and feedback” for two of Professor Chilton’s (the Grievor’s) courses. The
Union is asserting that the nature of the assignments should be credited as being in the
nature of an “essay or project”. The College has treated them as “Routine”. The
outcome of this case is based on the application of the evidence to the relevant portions
of Article 11.01 E 1:
11.01 E 1 Weekly hours for evaluation and feedback in a course shall be attributed to a
teacher in accordance with the following formula:
_____________________________________________________________________
RATIO OF ASSIGNED TEACHING CONTACT HOURS TO ATTRIBUTED HOURS
FOR EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK
____________________________________________________________________
Essay or project Routine or Assisted In-Process
1:0.030 per student 1:0.015 per student 1:0.0092 per student
_____________________________________________________________________
11.01 E 2 For purposes of the formula:
(i) "Essay or project evaluation and feedback" is grading:
– essays
– essay type assignments or tests
– projects; or
– student performance based on behavioral assessments compiled by the
teacher outside teaching contact hours.
(ii) "Routine or assisted evaluation and feedback" is grading by the teacher
outside teaching contact hours of short answer tests or other evaluative tools
where mechanical marking assistance or marking assistants are provided.
The Grievor teaches courses for aspirating electricians. He described his objective as
being to teach his students how to navigate the Electrical Code (the Code). The two
courses under consideration in this case are ‘Code 1402’ and ‘Code 3400’. Code 1402
is taught in the first semester. This is an introduction to the Rules and Regulations in the
Code. The course covers the general layout of the Code, its scope, objectives and
requirements, and the use of its tables. Code 3400 is taught in the third semester and
2
involves learning how to locate the rules that pertain to installations beyond what ha s
been previously covered, including commercial applications.
The issue in this case is the nature or type of assignments that the Grievor gives to his
students during the semester. For both courses, he assigns what he calls “homework”
or “tests” that are based on the subject matter of his lectures. His purpose is to ensure
that the students are learning how to understand, use and apply the Code safely and
properly.
The Parties filed an extensive set of the Grievor’s assignments. They are very similar.
They involve a series of questions asking the students to identify the section of the
Code that is applicable to a particular situation and indicate what type of wire, material,
spacing, equipment, conduits, and/or cables are required. Other questions demand that
the students calculate the final ampacity rating of conductors to be installed in areas
with specified ambient temperature ratings. These questions require the students to
identify the applicable Code rule(s), sub-rules and table, and often to calculate the final
ampacity. This can involve several steps and the use of arithmetic involving
multiplication and, less frequently, fractions. The following are some representative
examples of the questions:
Eg.1 What is the final ampacity rating of 3-750 kcmil, T90Nylon,
copper conductors, if they are to be pulled into a raceway that will be installed in
an area that has an ambient temperature that is expected to reach a maximum of
50°Celcius?
Rule #: ____________________ Table #: ____________________
______________________________________________________
Eg. 2 Which Table must be used to determine the conditions of use, and the maximum
allowable conductor temperature, for conductors and cables?
Rule #: ____________________ Table #: ____________________
______________________________________________________
3
Eg. 3 Which conductor must be grounded in a multi-phases, AC system that has one
wire common to all phases?
Rule #: ____________________
______________________________________________________
Eg. 4 What is the minimum size of TW-75 copper conductor that we can install for a load
rated for 75 amps, in a conduit containing six conductors, and will be installed in a
location where the ambient temperature is expected to reach a maximum of 50°C? (hint: since the load is provided then we have to inflate the ampacity to obtain conductor size)
Code #: ____________________ Table #: ____________________
Show Calculations
Eg. 5 What minimum size rigid metal conduit [is] required to contain 7 - #10 awg,
RW90-XLPE, jacketed, (600V) insulated conductors?
Rule #: ____________________ Table #: ____________________
______________________________________________________
One of the assignments includes a chart asking the students to calculate the ampacity
of conductors by giving them information about the material, insulation, enclosure,
ampacity, number of wires, derated ampacity and ambient temperature. From this chart,
the students simply fill in the answers. Some other questions also ask the students to
articulate the object and scope of the Code so that their critical thinking skills can be
assessed. Some of the questions call for the students to go through several steps, using
the Code’s tables and rules to reach the correct answers. However, all the questions
call for no more than one-to-three-line answers. Some questions can be answered by
one word or rule number. In each case a correct answer is given one mark. As the
Grievor explained, the objective to the assignments is to ensure that the students
understood each lecture and then know how to identify the right Code rules, sub -rules
and tables that are needed to determine the proper requirements for any installation.
4
The Grievor’s feedback was also filed in evidence. In addition to marking the answers
as correct or incorrect, he sometimes provided the correct answers, pointed students to
the appropriate rules and advised students to review the areas of their notes or lectures
that would have led them to the correct result.
The College’s response to the Union and the Grievor’s evidence was given by Dean
Milburn. She did not challenge the Grievor’s dedication to his students or the
pedagogical value of his assignments. In the steps leading up to this Workload
arbitration, she reviewed the Grievor’s assignments and the feedback that he provided.
Her objective was to find out the type of answers that the Grievor would be evaluating .
Her review led her to the conclusion that the students were being asked to provide short
answers and apply basic math to situations that involved the application of the Code to
specific situations.
Dean Milburn also compared the Grievor’s two courses to others taught at the College
to assess whether the attributions on his SWFs are consistent within the Program. For
example, she compared them to Math 3401 that evaluates “high level” or “complex”
trigonometry problems where the answers require the demonstration of several
calculations, and the answers cannot be derived from tables such as can be found in
the Code. The sample “test” provided for Math 3401 indicates questions requiring the
students to set out their methodology and calculations on a page and the professor to
assess their work and the answers. Math 3401’s attributed hours of evaluation and
feedback is at the “essay or project” level. The other example the Dean provided was a
“general elective” course that all students are required to take. This assignment called
for a 1000-1200-word essay on the topic of forensic psychology that fell squarely within
the “essay or project” definition under Article 11.01 E 2.
5
The Submissions of the Parties
The Submissions of the Union
The Union suggested that the definitions in Article 11.01 E 2 “leave a lot of room for
interpretation”. It was submitted that the “routine or assisted” category is designed to
capture assignments where marking involves “essentially a check mark”, since the time
attributed during a semester amounts to only about “one minute per student per week”.
In contrast, the Union argued that the “essay or project” category encompasses a
broader scope of work where the students are required to demonstrate the work they
have done and where the assignments are “formative”. In graphic terms, the “routine”
category was described as being “regurgitative”, whereas the “essay” category was
described as “evaluative”. It was said that the evidence established that the Grievor’s
assignments were designed to ensure that the students understood how to interpret and
apply the Code. The complexity of the assignments was said to be evident from the
students’ need to go through several steps to identify the appropriate Code rules, sub-
rules, practical applications, and calculations. The time spent by the Grievor to mark the
assignments and provide feedback was not relied upon to justify the attribution for the
SWF. But it was drawn upon to underscore the contention that these were not “routine”
or “check mark” types of assignments.
The Union argued that the contrasting assignment tabled by the College with respect to
Math 3401 supported the Union’s case because it was an example of questions
requiring students to do calculations based on formulas that had been taught to them.
This was said to be akin to the Code 1402 and 3400 assignments that asked students
to interpret the Code and make calculations from its Rules and Tables.
In support of these submissions, the Union relied upon the following cases: Seneca
College and OPSEU, Local 560, December 17, 2001 (Snow); Algonquin College v.
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 415, 2010 CanLII 72612 (ON LA)
6
(Slotnick); Fordyce and Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology, 1987
CanLII 8483 (ON LA) (Foster).
By way of remedy, the Union submitted that the Grievor should have an essay-type
attributional of 1:0.030 hours per student for the agreed upon portions of the two
courses under consideration in this case.
The Submissions of the College
The College acknowledged that some of the examples of the Grievor’s assignments call
for the students to make calculations, involving multiple applications of the Electrical
Code’s rules, sub-rules and tables. However, the College stressed that the assignments
must be looked at “holistically” and that this should lead to the conclusion that the
majority of the questions call for short answers and are more in the nature of a “quiz”
than an essay. Further, even when the assignments ask the students to show their
calculations, each question only results in the awarding of one mark. It was stressed
that the caselaw on Article 11.01 E 2 has established that the nature of the questions
and the type of evaluation determine the amount of time that should be attributed on the
SWF. It was said that this turns on whether the assignment calls for “short answer” or
essay type responses from the students. In other words, it was said that the SWF’s
attribution is not based on the students’ efforts, but instead it is based on the effort the
professors must make to mark the assignment.
It was stressed that the assignments in the two courses under consideration in this case
involved the professor marking the answers as either correct or incorrect. The College
stressed that the short answers define the issue for purposes of Article 11.01 E 2.
Further, the Grievor’s “feedback” was said to be “limited” because it involved only
general comments and did not address all incorrect answers.
The College relied on the following cases in support of its submissions: Mohawk
College and OPSEU, Local 26, July 27, 2020 (Starkman); Seneca College and OPSEU,
7
Local 560, December 5, 1995 (Albertyn); Conestoga College and OPSEU (Rowe,
Cocha, Kummu), May 16, 1995 (Whitehead); Mohawk College and OPSEU, Local 240,
February 15, 2016 (Snow); Cambrian College and OPSEU, Local 655, September 24,
2018 (Jesin).
In summary, the College submitted that there has been no error in the attribution of
1:0.015 hours per student to the portion of the Grievor’s two courses that are being
challenged in this case.
The Decision
The analysis of this case must begin with clarity about what this Award will not address
and what is not in dispute. First, while both Parties presented submissions addressing
potential long-term implications of this case on the Program, this College, and other
Colleges, I made it clear at the hearing, and I confirm herein, that this Award is focused
on the specific facts and evidence presented in this case . The outcome may be of
interest to others, but its impact is intended to be limited simply to the facts of this case.
Further, while the College indicated in its opening that it maintains the management
right to determine the nature of assignments for every course, the Grievor was allowed
to design his own assignments. Therefore, this case does not have to assess the
validity of the assignments or whether they conform to the College’s directives.
Third, the Grievor’s dedication to his students and this Program is not disputed. It is
clear that he takes enormous care and time to crafting the evaluation methodology for
his students. On a general level, it is also undisputed that the SWFs do not come close
to approximating the actual time it may take for a professor to design and mark any form
of “evaluation and feedback”. The formula in Article 11.02 E 1 is, for better or worse, a
formula reached by these very sophisticated Parties during negotiation over several
complex issues. Therefore, while the evidence demonstrated that the Grievor may
spend far more time on “evaluation and feedback” than might be captured by even the
8
“Essay or project” ratio, that is not an element that this Collective Agreement allows me
to take into account.
Finally, it should be noted that neither Party is asserting that the two courses involve the
“assisted” aspect of the “Routine or Assisted” evaluation categories. The issue is simply
whether they fall within the “Essay or Project” or the “Routine” aspects of the two
applicable categories.
Turning to the principles that should be applied to the evidence, in his Seneca College
decision, supra, Arbitrator Snow set out a useful explanation for the terms in Article
11.02 E 1:
Para. 16: . . . “routine” . . . is short answer tests. . . . Short answer tests are
normally used to ensure that the student has absorbed certain pieces of
information and can repeat them.
Para. 17: What then of the “essay or project” category? . . . . these are works
created by the students which, hopefully, demonstrate that the students both
understand the ideas, skills, techniques or concepts dealt with in the course, and
more importantly, can combine several of them and apply them to new situations.
This is consistent with Arbitrator’s Snow’s decision in Mohawk College, supra, wherein
he noted that the nature of questions asking for “short answers” takes the assignment
out of the “essay or project” category.
This is also supported by the decision of Arbitrator Jesin in his Cambrian College case,
supra, where he wrote “. . . many of, not most of the testing required answers which
were relatively short and easily marked”. That situation warranted a confirmation that a
“blended” evaluation factor attributed by that College was deemed appropriate. What is
telling from that case is that that the inclusion of the short answers kept the assignments
out of the “essay” type category. However, the Parties agreed in the case at hand that I
do not have the jurisdiction to impose a “blended” evaluation, given the terms of this
Collective Agreement.
9
The evidence in this case established that the assignments given by the Grievor were
designed to ensure that the students had absorbed the materials in his lectures and
could apply them to the actual situations. The questions were crafted to ensure that the
students knew how to navigate the Electrical Code and do the appropriate calculations
that are necessary to work within the prescribed statutory rules. While the questions
may seem mystifying to a lay person, the evidence also revealed that the answers can
all be found in the Code or, in same cases, with the application of basic arithmetic. Most
importantly, the answers are, for the most part, either correct or incorrect and are
“short”, taking up only one to three lines. Further, the more complex questions do not
form the bulk of any of the assignments. In all cases, the answers generate only one
mark. Therefore, they can be “easily marked”.
The issue in this case is not how difficult the questions might seem or how much
knowledge the students must acquire. The issue depends on the nature of the
assignment for the purposes of determining the time that should be attributed to
evaluation. For purposes of the SWF formula, “short answer tests” fall within the
“Routine” evaluation category. The assignments in both of the Grievor’s courses called
for short answers, as can be seen from the representative samples cited above.
This case is different from the Math 3401 course offered at this College where the bulk
of the questions involved complex calculations and required the Professor to assess the
work of the students as they applied advanced mathematical formulae. The marking
involved more than determining whether the student arrived at the right answer. In
contrast, the bulk of questions on the assignments in this case could be marked simply
by checking off whether the answer was correct or incorrect. Only a few questions
asked the students to show their calculations. It is true that it might have taken more
than “regurgitation” for the Grievor’s students to arrive at some of the right answers, but
the determining factor here is that it only takes a professor a quick look to see if the
answer is correct before deciding whether or not to assign a mark.
10
This case is different from the situation considered by Arbitrator Slotnick in Algonquin
College, supra. In that case, although there was only one correct answer to each
question, the calculations were complex and could only be determined by evaluating at
least one page full of analysis. It was concluded, “… it is difficult to label a test where
the answer fills nearly a full page as a short answer test.” In contrast, the short, 1 - 3
line answers asked for in the assignments given by the Grievor are all short answers.
For all these reasons, the Workload grievance must be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 2nd day of November, 2021
________________________________________
Paula Knopf - Arbitrator