Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPrince 10-02-11 IN THE MATTER OF A WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATION BETWEEN GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE (Herein after referred to as the "College') AND THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (FOR ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES) (Herein after referred to as the "Union") Complaint of Sonie Prince WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRA TOR: Tanja Wacyk APPEARANCES: FOR SONIE PRINCE: Sonie Prince Tom Tomassi, Co-Chair of the College Workload Monitoring Group FOR THE COLLEGE: Brenda Bowlby, Counsel Varujan Gharkhanian, Co-Chair of the College Workload Monitoring Group, and Manager, Labour Relations Anne McKenzie-Rivers, Past Chair of the Nursing Department Elizabeth Spears, Director, Cenh'e for Business and member of Workload Monitoring Group Sherry Taylor, Senior Human Resources Consultant LOCATION OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario AWARD BACKGROUND: 1. Sonie Prince is a Professor in the School of Nursing. She teaches two sections of Practical Nursing Clinical Applications II for registered practical nurses. 2. Ms Prince has eight students in each section. 3. Two hours ofthe course involves a practice lab for which the evaluation and feedback factor is .0092 as all the evaluation and feedback is "in process", with the students demonstrating their skills within the lab. The other 12 hours of the course involves clinical placement at Runnymede Health Care Centre, a complex continuing care centre. Each section has four students assigned to two different units, the Rehabilitation Unit and Complex Continuing Care, both of which are on the same floor. 4. The evaluation and feedback factor on Ms Prince's Winter (1an, 11 - Feb, 28 & Mar. 8- April 25, 2010) Standard Workload Forms ("SWFs") for the clinical placement is .03 (essay or project). The College has agreed to this factor for all the clinical placements in the School of Nursing despite its position that a significant portion of the evaluation and feedback in those settings is "in process" as well, 5. As Ms Prince has not taught the course for more than 5 years, it is treated as a new course, and she receives the highest factor for preparation time. 6. Ms Prince maintains that the course requires more work for feedback and evaluation than is contemplated in the SWF Formula. Consequently, she argues that the course is "atypical" and requests an additionall.5 hours per week for feedback and evaluation, although she maintains it takes more time than that. The relevant article of the collective agreement is article 11.01 G 2: 1 L01 G 2 Whcrc there arc atypical circumstances affecting thc workload of a teachcr or group of teachers which are not adequatcly reflected in this Article 11 , Workload, additional hours shall be attributed, following discussion between each teacher individually and the supervisor, on an hour for hour basis, EVIDENCE: Sonie Prince 7. Ms Prince described the evaluation methods used in the course. These include: weekly reflective journals, two of which must be written by the students each week, with the possibility of rewriting five of them in order to meet the requirement that 14 be written at an acceptable level; completion of at least two care plans, with one revision attempt per care plan allowed; three examples of charting in the written format with one revision allowed for the first two attempts only; Two observed therapeutic interactions with clients that are satisfactory, with only three attempts being evaluated over the semester; Evaluation of students in accordance with a psychomotor skills checklist; Completion of all self-learning SPC psychomotor skills modules, with one rewrite per test allowed; and; Completion of two student clinical performance appraisals, for which Ms Prince completes her own evaluation and discusses it with the student. 8. Ms Prince pointed out that the reflective journal must be handwritten, and referenced. She further indicated that 75% of the class is currently doing revisions, although she anticipated this would improve with experience. 9. Ms Prince testified that the rubric for the journal is also quite detailed and requires that the journal be marked on factors such as content; reflection for clinic experience, critical thinking; format, language and mechanics. She indicated that it takes her approximately 30 minutes to review and assess each journal although the assessments are limited to two categories i.e. Satisfactory; Needs Improvement/Unsatisfactory. 10. Further any student required to do five rewrites is considered to be failing; and must enter 2 into a "learning contract" setting out the student's goals and strategies for achieving them. 11. The student clinical appraisals must be kept up to date and referred to when completing the students' reflective journals. Ms Prince then reads them and assesses how well the student has met the competencies, This is done twice, in weeks 7 and 14. 12. Ms Prince also testified that the nursing care plans the students are required to produce, and that she must review, can be quite extensive and detailed, as demonstrated by the example she provided. They must include the patient's health history, diagnosis, including medication, and a head to toe assessment. The students must also identify a minimum of three problems their patient is experiencing or will experience, and identify three goals that arc measurable and realistic for the patient. 13. Three interventions are required for each problem, for a total of nine, as well as a rational supported by documentation for each intervention. The student must then evaluate if the goals have been accomplished. Ms Prince must also assess the language and mechanics of the plan. Using a Documentation Rubric, Ms Prince assesses whether the plans are satisfactory or not. 14. The students' therapeutic communication is assessed while observing the student in a clinical setting, utilizing a checkwlist. Ms Prince mayor may not give a student notice that she is coming. 15. In the context of psychomotor skills, the students learn about topics such as oral and topical medication; injections and inhalation therapy; sterile technique and wound care/dressings; catherization and bladder irrigation thru IV; and enteral nutrition Le. feeding by a nasogastric tube. 16. Ms Prince testified that she may also give up to a 20 minute lecture in the post- consultation time in the clinical portion of the course. 3 17. In the lab, students are assessed using detailed checklists, requiring again a determination regarding whether they demonstrate the psychomotor skills necessary to perform numerous procedures. In most but not all classes, Ms Prince gives a lecture of no more than Y2 hour and then the students practice the skills. The assessment regarding whether the appropriate skills are demonstrated is made on a yes/no basis, with room for comments. 18. The students are also given a multiple-choice test comprised of 15 questions, with the goal that they get 80% of them correct. Ms Prince selects the questions from a bank and the students exchange papers for grading. 19, Students must also provide Ms Prince with their organizational plans/worksheets, indicating how their day has been organized. Although these do not require grading, Ms Prince testified that they take some time to read. 20. After week seven, the students each do a 15 minute presentation regarding either an illness or a procedure. They must also must also provide a one page handout, including references, to the audience, The presentation is assessed using a rubric. 2]. Ms Prince maintained there is also a lot of marking and feedback outside of the clinical setting. College 22. Anne MacKenzie~Rivers testified on behalf of the College. Ms MacKenzie-Rivers is the past-chair of various faculties including, most recently, the School of Nursing. She is not a nurse but has taught English and psychology to nursing students. She has recently retired. 23. Ms MacKenzie-Rivers testified that Ms Prince's description of her practice lab is consistent with how other practice labs are structured and taught in the School of Nursing. 4 24, Ms MacKenzie-Rivers also indicated that the enrolment numbers in Ms Prince's course are similar to those in other practice labs in the 2nd and 3rd semester within the School, in that they usually have 8 - 10 students, and all have an evaluation factor of .0092, Semester I usually has 15 students per practice lab. 25. Similarly, according to Ms MacKenzie-Rivers, the evaluation and feedback factor of .03 is the same for the other professors teaching in clinical programs. 26. Ms MacKenzie-Rivers also indicated that it is the Faculty in the School of Nursing who are responsible for determining what assessment tools will be used in teaching the various courses. She indicated that in an effort to standardize the types of assessment tools and provide efficiency in clinical courses, the various rubrics were developed and are used in all three semesters. 27. Ms MacKenzie-Rivers testified that familiarity with the rubrics is very helpful in marking the various evaluative tools as it eliminates the need to write detailed notes to the student, as the mbric "has it all laid out". This would enable Faculty to simply add evaluative comments such as "this is extremely well done", It was Ms MacKenzie-Rivers' evidence that, assuming familiarity with the rubric and the competencies, it would take about 6-8 minutes to mark a journal if it is well prepared, and perhaps 10 minutes if there were problems. She conceded that she has a number of years of experience in this regard. ~ I 28, Ms MacKenzie-Rivers maintained that when a Faculty member designs his or her own rubrics and cases, that constitutes part of the evaluation. However, when the materials are given to Faculty members, they constitute part of the course materials, and becoming familiar with them is part of the preparation for the course, as students must be advised regarding what is required of them. 5 ARGUMENT: Ms Prince 29. The Union, on Ms Prince's behalf, maintains that article 11.01 G 2 was put into the collective agreement to deal with the atypical circumstances within the School of Nursing. 30. In any event, the Union indicated the College has recognized that Ms Prince requires additional time for preparation in order to enable her to match students to patients to ensure patients were dealt with effectively, resulting in an additional 1.5 hours being added to Ms Prince's SWF. The Union argued that this alone demonstrates that Ms Prince's circumstances are atypical, as there are no other courses outside of Nursing where this is an issue. 31. The Union also maintained that the course itself was atypical in terms of the pass/fail nature ofthe evaluations, and the number of rewrites that are permitted - which the union maintained was also unique in the College, although no evidence was called by either party in that regard, 32. The Union points out that while the nature of the work is not an issue, the parties disagree regarding the time required to perform it. The Union submits that to suggest that 10 minutes is sufficient to assess a student's journal is an unfairly simplistic portrayal of what is required. The Union suggested that I prefer Ms Prince's evidence that it would take a minimum of 12 hour to perform that work. 33. The Union also maintained that the fact that Ms Prince's students are not in a lecture hall, but rather in different locations while performing their clinical work constitutes atypical circumstances. 6 34. Similarly, the Union argued that another significant difference between Nursing and other courses, is that the consequences of error are far more significant, as medication that is administered incorrect can be lethal. 35. Finally, the Union argued that the Standard Workload Formula set out in article 11 of the collective agreement is a tool that rarely reflects all the work required of Faculty, In that regard, the Union submitted in argument, but without having led evidence in this regard, that as the only full time Faculty member, Ms Prince spends additional time nurturing the part~time Faculty members, but is not credited for that time on her SWF. 36. This was contested by the College, which maintained that work was done by a "Clinical Lead", However, as no evidence was led by either party on this issue, and as I am of the view that is does not assist me in deciding whether there are atypical circumstance that affect Ms Prince's workload, I will not deal with it any further. College 37. The College did not concede that, as asserted by the Union, article 11.01 G 2 was put into the collective agreement to deal with the atypical circumstances within the School of Nursing, 38. The College pointed out that despite the Union's argument that the course is atypical because of the evaluation and feedback component, Ms MacKenzie-Rivers' testimony that the evaluation used is similar to that in other clinical courses in the RPN and Nursing courses was unchallengcd. This was also the case regarding her evidence that ,03 is the evaluation factor assigned in those instances. Consequently, the College argued that it could not be said that this course was atypical. 7 39. The College argued that the attribution of the highest evaluation and feedback factor of .03 is an acknowledgement that, despite a significant part of the assessment of the students' skills is "in process" through their work with patients, there is more marking than the norm for that type of evaluation. 40. That having becn said, the College also argued that the evaluation for the course is pass/fail, as is the case with all the clinical courses in the School of Nursing, and that this is less demanding than having to distinguish between students by specific grades based on the quality of their work. In this instance, Ms Prince need only consider the rubric to determine if a student has covered all requirements and receives a passing grade. 41. The College also argued that in assessing her workload, it is appropriate to look at Ms Prince's preparation time, particularly in light of the additional 1.5 hours she now has available to match patients and students. The College submitted that Ms Prince is a nurse and must be competent to teach and monitor what the College described as quite basic nursing skills. Further, she would require little other preparation time than that required for her Y2 hour lectures in the lab, and the 20 minute lecture in post-consultation, as the rest of the time the students spend practicing their skills. 42. The College further argued that the SWF Formula in I I .01 is a generic formula, agreed to by the parties, and intended to apply to all professors. This includes both courses such as this one, where the Professor plays a significant monitoring role, correcting procedures if necessary, and courses requiring more formal lectures, or materials which change rapidly, 43. The College pointed out that Ms Prince had only 8 students in her 14 teaching hours, compared to some professors with 35-50 students, which, ifthey have 3 course can involvc closc to 200 students whose essays must be marked. 44. The College also submitted that the fonllula does not vary depending on how quickly one professor works compared to others. The College pointed out that as remuneration is determined by the factors on the SWF, care must be taken to avoid rewarding faculty who 8 perform the same work but simply take longer to do so, perhaps because they are new and not as familiar with the materials as are the more seasoned Faculty. 45. The College also argued that it is significant that the Faculty, which set the evaluation tools in this instance, have not chosen to change them. 46. The College also pointed out that article 11.01 g 2, in dealing with atypical circumstances, does not focus on one area but rather refers to the "workloadu. Consequently, in determining if a situation falls within that provision, it is appropriate to look at the overall workload generated by the formula and actually worked by a professor, as it would be unfair to award more hours if all the designated preparatory hours are not needed because of the type of course being taught. 47. In that regard, the College relied on my decision in George Brown College and OPSEU, (grievance of David Burgess), November, 2004 in which I stated at page 22: The appropriate analysis would also involve an assessment of whether the atypical circumstances are such that they impact on Professor Burgess' overall workload - as in my view, the individual components of the formula are not to be viewed, at least in this context, in isolation. This does not mean, as suggestcd by Professor Burgess, that less time is to be attributed for a particular function than is set out in the formula. It is clear, however, that the formula is a generic one, and does not take into account the fact that some courses will, by their nature, require more or less actual time for particular functions than attributed in accordance with the workload formula. The formula allows for those individual variations, and at the time thc parties negotiated it, they agreed the formula would be the measure against which workloads would be asscssed. Consequently, to establish that atypical circumstances exist which affect the workload of a teacher and which are not adequately reflccted in Article 11, it would have to be demonstrated that the atypical circumstances result in a professor spending more than the attributcd wcekly hours as dctermincd by the workload formula in Article 11. 48. Iu that case, the issue was whether the time allocated for routine out-of~class assistance was adequate, in light of what the complainant and union maintained were atypical classroom numbers. 9 49. In summary, the College argued that other than Ms Prince's evidence regarding how long it takes her to mark a reflective journal, there was no evidence that Ms Prince's workload is affected by atypical circumstances. The College further maintained there was no evidence that Ms Prince was unable to complete the work in the total hours allotted. While acknowledging that is not the end of the enquiry, the College argued that Ms Prince had not established that her situation is atypical. 50. Rather, the College argued, that the evidence established that all other full time professors in the School of Nursing, although perhaps not teaching the same course, have the same evaluation factor in situations where the same assessment tools are used. The College further argued that in the absence of atypical circumstances the grievance should be dismissed. AN AL YSIS AND DETERMINATION: 51. Ms Prince's evaluation and feedback factor for her lab course is .0092 reflecting the "in- process" nature of the evaluation. I did not understand Ms Prince's position to be that she performed any form of evaluation other than in"process, so there is no basis on which to revisit that factor. 52. Ms Prince already receives the highest evaluation and feedback factor for the clinical component of her course, I.e. .03, and no opportunity exists pursuant to article 11.01 E, which sets out the factors for evaluation and feedback, to increase it. 53. Consequently, the only avenue for redress is for Ms Prince to demonstrate, pursuant to article 11.01 G 2, that there are atypical circumstances affecting her workload, that are not adequately reflected in article 11. 54. In this instance, I find that the evidence is to the contrary. While the methods of course evaluation and feedback in the course taught by Ms Prince are perhaps different from that 10 in other schools or departments, it was Ms MacKenzie-Rivers' uncontested evidence that they arc commonplace in the School of Nursing, 55. Further, the College has acknowledged that although a significant portion of the evaluation and feedback is what could be described as "in-process", the evaluation and feedback arc sufficiently demanding that the highest factor of ,03 should be assigned. The evidence demonstrates that this too is commonplace with regard to the other nursing courses. 56. I can only conclude that, given that the similarities in the tools and consistencies with the rubrics, that Ms Prince's circumstances are not atypical in the School of Nursing. 57. Finally, and perhaps most telling, is that the evaluation methods and tools used in the School of Nursing were developed by the Faculty themselves, and it appears no efforts are underway to reduce or change them. Consequently, it appears that other School of Nursing Faculty, using similar tools, do not feel the demands of the evaluation and feedback components are not adequately reflected in article 11, as an obvious remedy would be to amend the evaluation methods and materials if they are too onerous on the Faculty. It may be that once Ms Prince has taught the course more than once, and is more familiar with the materials and in particular the rubrics, she may feel the same. 58. For all the reasons set out above, I find Ms Prince has not established that there are atypical circumstances affecting her workload. Consequently I find she has no remedy pursuant to article 11.0 I G 2. 11 DISPOSITION: 59. For the reasons set out above, Ms Prince's complaint regarding her Winter SWFs is dismissed, DATED AT TORONTO, THIS 11 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010, "Tanja Wacyk" WR Arbitrator 12