Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorcoran/Donaldson/Hall/Levesque/Vourensyrja 23-01-03 IN THE MATTER OF A WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATION BETWEEN: Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 655 (“Union”) -and- Cambrian College (“Employer”) Workload Resolution Grievance of Professors Corcoran, Donaldson, Hall, Levesque, and Vuorensyrja ______________________________________________________________________ AWARD Arbitrator: Michelle Flaherty Date: January 3, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES For the Union For the Employer Neil Shyminsky Chris Vuorensyrja Parvinder Arora Loradonna Botter Stacey Vehkala 2 [1] I have been appointed pursuant to an arbitration decision issued by Arbitrator Kaplan on September 23, 2022, which includes a Letter of Understanding regarding Multi- Mode Adaptation (“LOU”). In keeping with the Kaplan Award, any issues that could not be resolved through the WMG process regarding the application, interpretation, or alleged violation of the LOU are referred to me, as a Workload Resolution Arbitrator (“WRA”). [2] The parties referred five matters to WRA, which were heard together on December 19, 2022. While the facts of each case differ slightly, they raise two common issues: a. Under the LOU, is the Employer required to allocate complementary function time for the ongoing adaptation of a course for multi-modal delivery? b. When the Employer assigns a new course to be delivered in a multi-modal format, is it required to allocate complementary function time in addition to the new course preparation factor? [3] The LOU applies to assignments commencing in the winter of 2023. It states: Where a College directs that a section of a course be adapted for simultaneous delivery in multiple modes to the same section of students, the academic manager and the employee shall discuss the allotment of complementary function time for development either prior to, or concurrent with, the multi-modal (e.g., HyFlex) delivery. Their agreement regarding the allotment shall be recorded on the employee’s SWF. Ongoing Adaptation [4] The Union submits that adapting a course for multi-modal delivery is an iterative and ongoing process, which cannot be completed in a single semester. According to the Union, the LOU should be interpreted expansively, to require an ongoing allocation of complementary time to account for the ongoing nature of the adaptation process. In addition, the Union states that multi-modal course delivery involves significantly more work for the instructor. This includes, among other things, the need to communicate more 3 and differently with students, to prepare materials that are accessible for all types of student participation, to organize activities and evaluations that can accommodate different types of participation, and to manage technology and recordings. [5] I have considered the language of the LOU and cannot conclude that it contemplates the allocation of time for the ongoing adaptation of a multi-modal course. Significantly, the LOU refers to adaptation time in situations where “the College directs” that a section of the course be adapted. The College has directed that certain courses be adapted for multi-modal delivery, but it cannot be said to have “directed” that this adaptation be ongoing. [6] Generally speaking, ongoing adjustments and updates to a course are addressed in the Collective Agreement, through the allocation of preparation time. These formulas apply regardless of the mode of delivery. If the parties intended that any updates or ongoing adaptation be treated differently for multi-modal delivery, I would have expected them to indicate this in the LOU. Instead, the LOU refers only to circumstances where the College “directs” that a section be adapted. In my view, this is consistent with limiting complementary time to the initial adaptation of the course. [7] I understand that the Union feels the workload associated with multi-modal delivery is not fully accounted for in the SWF formulas. As a WRA arbitrator, however, I do not have the jurisdiction to address these issues. My only role is to interpret the LOU and the Collective Agreement, to give effect to the understanding between the parties as expressed in those documents. I cannot deviate from the language of these agreements, including to address matters the parties may feel are unfair or inequitable. New Course Assignment [8] The Union submits that when members are assigned to teach a new course for multi-modal delivery, the members are entitled to: a. hours based on new course preparation; and 4 b. additional time under the LOU for course adaptation. [9] In my view, the Union’s position is not supported by the language of the LOU. The assignment of a new course is just that – a new course, with preparation time allocated based on the new course formula in the Collective Agreement. This formula applies regardless of the mode of course delivery. [10] Under the Collective Agreement, faculty members are entitled to new course preparation time for courses they are teaching for the first time or for the first time since a major revision of the course or curriculum has been approved by the College. New courses cannot be said to be “adapted” to a mode of delivery. Rather, they are prepared for the first time (or the first time since major revisions) based on the mode of delivery assigned by the College. Under the language LOU, there is no entitlement to complementary time to “adapt” a new course. [11] The Union points out that, based on this Employer’s approach to allocating adaptation time, a faculty member who adapts an established course will be assigned more complementary time than a faculty member who is teaching a new course in a multi- modal format. According to the Union, this is incongruous and supports its position that members should receive adaptation time in addition to the new course preparation factor. [12] As noted, my jurisdiction is limited to interpreting the LOU and the Collective Agreement. For the reasons set out above, these documents do not require an allocation of time to “adapt” new courses. The result may seem incongruous. However, within the WRA process, my only role is to interpret the Collective Agreement and the LOU, not to assess the fairness of the agreements reached by the parties. Additional Issues [13] One of the cases referred to WRA involves a professor who was previously assigned a course for multi-modal delivery. In a previous term, the professor was assigned complementary time to adapt the course. However, because of a request for 5 accommodation and/or the fact that no students registered for in-person learning, the professor did not ultimately deliver the course multi-modally. Instead, she taught it entirely online. [14] The same course has now been assigned to the professor for the winter 2023 semester, with multi-modal delivery. The Union submits that the professor is entitled to adaptation time on her SWF for the winter of 2023. [15] Although the professor has not previously delivered the course multi-modally, she has been assigned preparation time to adapt it to that method of delivery. In these circumstances, the professor is not entitled to additional adaptation time. [16] The LOU applies, on a go-forward basis, to assignments beginning in the winter of 2023. However, I note that the LOU states that the allotment of complementary function time for course adaptation may be prior to or concurrent with the multi-modal delivery. This professor was assigned adaptation time prior to the multi-modal delivery of the course. The LOU does not entitle her to additional adaptation time for the winter of 2023. [17] Finally, the Employer has sometimes used different terms as synonyms (such as “flex” and “virtual”) to describe what, in practice, is the same mode of course delivery. The fact that the descriptor or label has changed does not automatically entitle faculty to additional adaptation time under the LOU. The entitlement to additional complementary time applies where the College requires a mode of delivery that is different in practice, not just in how it has been labelled. Disposition [18] For the reasons set above, there is no entitlement to additional complementary time. The LOU does not require complementary time beyond the initial adaptation of the course, as directed by the College. Where professors are assigned to teach a new course, the LOU does not entitle them to complementary time to “adapt” that new course. 6 Signed in Ottawa, this 3rd day of January 2023. Michelle Flaherty