Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStellings 10-09-08 IN THE MATTER OF A WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATION BETWEEN GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE (Herein after referred to as "the ColIege~~) AND THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (FOR ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES) (Herein after referred to as "the Union") Complaint of Jennifer SteUillgs WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATOR: TanJa Wacyk APPEARANCES: FOR JENNIFER STELLlNGS: Jennifer Stellings Damian Wieehula~ Chief Steward OPSEU 556 Mary Anne Kuntz, Senior Grievance Officer FOR THE COLLEGE: Brenda Bowlby~ Counsel Varujan Gharkhanlall~ Co~CJlair oE the College Workload Monitoring Group~ and Manager~ Labour Relations Luigi Fel'l'ara~ Directol' of the School oE Design Jonathan Gould~ Manager of Operatlons~ School of Design Elizabeth Speers, Director, Centre for Business LOCATION OF HEARING: TorontoJ Ontario AWARD BACKGROUND: I. Ms. Stellings is a Professor in the School of Design. She complains that she has not been attributed time on her Winter 2010 (January 1 I - April 24) Standard Workload Form ("SWF") for "team meetings" with co-faculty i.e. meetings to consult with other Faculty for the pUrpose of coordinating course delivery. In that respect, Ms. Stellings requests two additional hours per week on her SWF. This would take her into an overtime assignment as her current SWF shows a workload of 43. 76 hours. The provision under which the additional time was sought was Article 1 1.0 I F of the Collective Agreement: 11.01 F Complementary functions appropriate to the professional role of the teaeher may be assigned to a teacher by the College. Hours for such functions shall be attributed on an hour for hour basis. 2. Of Ms. Stellings' workload of 43. 76 hours, she had been released for 23.51 hours for Union business, and was teaching parHime i.e. two courses. Although she had only six contact teaching hours assigned, Ms. Stellings received the full attribution of six complementary hours pursuant to 11.01 F: An allowance ofa minimum of six hours of the 44 hour maximum weekly total workload shall be attributed as follows: Four hours for routine out-of-c1ass assislancc to individual students two hours for normal administrative tasks. 3. The College maintains that the type of collaborative work with olher Faculty members for which Ms. Stellings is seeking additional hours falls within the two hours she is already attributed for administrative tasks, pursuant to Article 11,01 F. 4. Ms. SteUings' presentation to the College Workload Monitoring Group describes the nature of the work for which she claims additional complementary hours: The Work This would include but is not limited to; · Time to confer with co-faculty (both full-time and non full-time) who are teaching lhe 2 courscs that I havc developed and teach _ Design I (GRAF 1005) i- Design 2 (GRAF 1015) . Bringing them up to speed on ncw directions and projects developed for the new curriculum recently rollcd out - important that all studcnts havc the same knowledge base. · Organizing and printing handouts, etc. _ important that all studenls have the same knowledge base. Design I - about 32 handouts (course outlinc, projccts, in-class, notcs, mark shcets, etc.) Design 2 - about 26 handouts (course outline, projects, in-class, nOles, mark shects, etc.) · Time to confer with co-faculty (both full-time and nOn full-timc regarding thc Dcsign 2 (GRAF 1015) since part of the new curriculum direction is to have cross discipline projects. (eg. Shape Book), While we have conferrcd regarding the projects and prcp work has been dOlle, it wiII need on-gOing communication to make it all work smoothly and in sync. II is important that aU faCUlty involved are 'working from the SalUe page' The Faculty This hour* that I respeclfillly request, would include meeting/conferring with: I Faculty for I section of Design I 1 (or 2) Faculty for 2 sections of Design 2 2 (or 3) other facully re: on-going joint projects (Production, Type, Digital Aps) Total at least 4 - 6 other Faculty. EVIDENCE: ('* this was revised to two hours at the time of the arbitration) 5. The lInion pointed out that on Ms. Stellings' Sept. - Oet. 2005 SWF; ber Sept. _ Oel. 2007 SWF; ano her Oct. - nee. 2007 SWF, sbe was attributed I bonr for "Tealll meetings". Ms. Stellings conceded, however, that historically tilis hnsnot been consistent and changed from semester to semester and from SWF to SWF, 6. Mr. Luigi Fermra, Director of the Scbool of Design, maintained the attribution of time fol' T enlll u1Cetings on Ms. S teliings SWF Occurred wben Mr. Gould, the Manngcr of Operations, SCllool of D esig n was new. He is responsible for completing the SWFs and ncceded to Ms. S tellings' 2 request that she received complementary time for some team meetings for project work, as sh~ had room 011 her SWF at the time, However, Mr. Ferrara maintained that such requests by Faculty are no longer granted. 7. Ms. Stellings indicated that after her request for attributed time to work with other Faculty members was denied, she invited Mr. Ferrara to direct her not to do the work, which he refused to do. Ms. Stellings also maintained that it was the Collcge's expectation that Faculty collaborate to provide an excellent and consistent learning experience for the students, 8. The Union also filed several SWFs for other Professors from the School of Design, all of which contained complementary hours for meetings or some sort of collaborative activity, to demonstrate that other Professors in the Department had received additional time on their SWFs for collaborating with other staff. Ms. Stellings submitted that Douglas Derrah, one of the Professors whose SWP was submitted, had been attributed time to work coIlaboratively with her, but she had not bcen attributed time to work with him. 9. Mr, Derrah's SWF shows he was attributed one hour to "Consult with Pac/Curric Teams; Re Design I & Prof Practice". When it was suggested that this had to do with curriculum development, Ms, Stellings maintained that when curriculum development is assigned it is noted as "curriculum development", and that Mr. Derrah had nothing to do with cUlTiculum development as she had developed the course and he was speaking to her about it. 10. Mr. Ferrara maintained it was not the Department's practice or policy to attribute complementary hours to Professors who have designed courses in order that they coIlaborate with or share matcrials with other Faculty teaching the course. He agreed with Ms. Stellings that it is an expectation that Professors confer with each other to ensure consistency in the course delivery but maintained this usually occurs informally and is not expressly assigned. II. Rather, Mr. Ferrara indicated that additional time is attributed for complementary fUllctions on a SWF when they are expressly assigned by the College or at the request of a Professor who wants to work on a project. He indicated that if Professors request additional time for various projects he was inclined to grant it if it did not involve over-time. 3 12. Mr. Ferrara maintained that all the above SWFs from the Design Department reflect assignments that are beyond the normal scope of duties. For example, every summer the Department has teams reviewing the curriculum. There are approximately 100 courses taught and each course is typically redesigned every two to three years. Most of the reviews are completed over the summer. If there remain outstanding items they are dealt with in the fall. 13, Consequently, Mr, Ferrara indicated Mr. Derrah was attributed one hour to "Consult with Fac/Curric Teams: Re Design I & Prof Practice" as he was assigned to wrHe a new possible course for 2nd year on Contcmporary Design Culture, and was asked to revise some projects in the "Profession Practice" course with colleagues. Mr, Ferrara testified that these other colleagues did not include Ms. Stellings. 14. Similarly, Shelly Warsh was attributed 1.50 hours to "Consult with Fac/Curric Team: Meet with John Baljkas and Diane Erlich re Type I and Digital Integration", which Mr. Ferrara testified was an assignment to consider how the two courses could share project materials ~ Le, develop cross- course projects working with two other Faculty members; Tracy England was attributed 1.00 hour to "Consult with Fac/Curric Teams: Colour & Intro to Design Disc" to develop cun'iculum on the "Intro to Design Discipline Course"; Gilles Morin was attributed 3 hours for "Project Coordination of student competition entries" for complcmentary hours to coordinate student competitions and 5 hours for "Course Leader: Thesis Coordinator" to coordinate a special thesis at the end ofthc program, which included an exhibition, jury, and consultation with a guest designer; Ian Gregory was attributed ,50 hours for "Consult with Fac/Curric Teams: Re Intro to Design Disciplines to work on academic advising and Intro to Design Disciplines" (same as Ms, England); Jerri Johnson was attributed .50 hours for "Consult with Fac/Curric Teams: Design III" to rewrite the Dcsign III course, and to organize the 2nd year show; and Annette Hamerik was attributed .50 hours for "Applicant recruilassessment Outreach" to visit high schools and 8 hours for "Project" in order to work on a special project, which Mr. Ferrara believed was a publication. 15. Mr. Ferrara agreed that Faculty curriculum teams working on a course or set of courses are expected to consult with each other when doing curriculum development as they often have projects that "cross" between them, 4 16. While Mr, Ferrera agreed with the Union that both Mr. Derrah and Ms. Stellings taught Design I in 2009, when Mr. Derrah was given additional time for "Consult with Fac/Curric Teams; Re Design I & Prof Practice", his evidence that Mr. Dcrrah received the additional time to write a new possible course and to revise some projects in the "Profession Practice" course with colleagues other than Ms. Stellings was not challenged. 17. The Union also filed seven SWFs from other Departments which contained attributed hours for work such as "working with peer leaders" and "Consult with Fae.lCurric Teams". However, without any more information, it is difficult to give these documents any weight, as thc nature of the work is not clear. 18. Ms. Stellings also relied on minutes from a G 102 Graphic Design Curriculum Development Meeting which occurred on May 25, 2009, While Ms, Stellings was not at the meeting, she pointed out that one of the items indicated that Faculty will be divided into teams with an assigned full.time Faculty member as a lead when possible, and that the G 102 Coordinator would facilitate team communication to provide continuity between multiple sections and consistency of projects. Ms. Stcllings indicated that this expressed the expectation and encouragement of Faculty to work as teams to have better courses in the faU semester. Consequently, she testified that she worked with Doug Darrah on the Design Course which they both taught, including chatting cvery Sunday via video so thcy could demonstrate to each other what they were each doing. 19. Mr, Ferrara, who on the other hand was at the G 102 Graphic Design Curriculum Development Meeting, testified that this was the annual meeting the Department has prior to the summer to discuss curriculum issues and how to improve students' experience. Thc Faculty then break into sub-teams, referred to ill the minutes. He indicated the sub-teams arc usually organized around the year taught in the program, or around thc course major. He maintained the focus was curriculum development for the Fall semester, not liaising around course delivery. 20, Mr. Ferrara also indicated the meeting this year was further to an Arts and Design Conference which took place on May 3 & 4, 2010 and which included Faculty from both the Arts and Design Programs. The theme of the conference was "how can we collaboratc" Le, can the graphic and fashion design students collaborate, and how could more collaboration be achieved in the future, This involved show-casing various collaborations in which Faculty members were engaged, 5 either with industry partners, Faculty in other colleges across Canada, or with students. One of the highlights of the conference was referred to as a "Collaboration Charter for Toronto", 21. In January 2010, Jennifer Mercer, a part-time Professor who was responsible for teaching the Design I course for the first time, was directed by Judith Gregory, the Coordinator in the Design Department, to get the course materials Le. project sheets and other relevant materials from Ms, Stellings, 22. The Union filed a copy of their e-mail communications. When Ms, Mercer requested the materials, Ms. Stellings organized and sent them in a manner to minimize any confusion, and offered to be of further assistance in terms of answering questions or meeting to discuss the course. This was followed by a number of e~ntails between Ms, Mercer and Ms, Stellings attempting to coordinate a meeting time. Subsequent to the meeting Ms. Mercer expresses her gratitude for Ms. Stellings' "very helpful assistance", 23. Additional e-mails reflect ongoing colJaboration between them, i.e.Ms, Mercer asking to see Ms. Stellings' lecture notes, and obtaining other materials from her, as well as Ms, Mercer reporting on how well her class is going. Much of the communication revolves around the logistics of getting together, Le, respective availabilities and meeting times. In one e-mail Ms, Mercer advises Ms. Stellings that she appreciates "all of the guidance" she has been giving her, and advises that she will be in touch with any questions that arise, 24, Ms. Stellings was not teaching the Design I course that semester, but had recently taught the course and knew it required some changes, which she made prior to sending the materials to Ms, Mercer. Consequently, Ms. Stellings maintained that between the time she spent updating or "tweeking" the course, e.mail communications, phone conferencing, as weU as short ad hoc meetings and notes she had to attend to, she was easily spending between 15 minutes to .5 hours per week assisting Ms. Mercer with the course. 25. Ms. Stellings also collaborated with and provided course materials to Catherine Ishino, who was teaching a partial load and would be teaching Design II as was Ms, Stellings. 26. Again, Ms, Stellings submitted copies of e-mailsbetweenherself.Ms. Ishino, and Ms. Gregory regarding the printing of various materials and the course in general. Much oflheir 6 communication also revolves around the logistics of getting together, Le. respective availabilities and meeting times, as well as a fundraising project for Haiti. It is apparent from Ms. Ishino's communications that, as was clearly the case with Ms, Mercer, she is also appreciative of the assistance she has received from Ms, Stellings. 27. Ms, Stellings maintained a log of her communications with Ms. Mercer and Ms. Ishino, and it was on that basis she claims an extra 2 hours per week on her SWF, as she indicated that the total of her log (which she maintained was not representative ofalt the time she spent in collaboration with her colleagues) totalled 24 hours and 45 minutes and she felt she should be compensated for that time, 28. Mr. Ferrara maintained that the e-mail exchanges between Ms. Stellings and Ms. Mercer, and Ms, Stellings and Ms. Ishino were of the type that falls with a Professor's standard workload, and in his view was very similar to communications othcr Professors have with their colleagues, without specific time attributed on their SWFs for that purposc. 29, The issue I must decide is whether the nature of the work itself is such that it is either captured under Article 11.0 I F as a "normal administrative task" or falls outside of that, and should be compensated on an hour by hour basis, Consequcntly, while little turns on this, it was apparent from a closer examination of the e-mails submitted by Ms, Stellings, that her log may not be an entirely accurate reflection of the time she spent. For example, while Ms. Stellings logged 25 minutes for an e-mail On a particular date, that e-mail could not be found. This and other inconsistencies led Ms, Stellings to concede that the log contained some errors, Further, some of the time logged falls outside thc SWF pcriod, which would not be assigned on the SWF in any event. The College also pointed out, and I accept, that at least some of the communication could be characterized as preparatory work, Wllich is already attributed time on Ms. Stellings' SWF. 30. Ms. Stellings and the Union disagrecd that her coJlaboration with other Faculty constituted "administrative tasks" as contemplated in Article 11.01 F. She suggestcd those include; reading e-mails from the College; picking up automatic phone messages regarding various functions at the College such as golf and picnics, and other communications dealing with various matters e.g. Human Rights or Professional Development; dealing with Human Resources postings; filling out timcsheets for attendance rccords; asking for tabs for file folders; getting office supplies; filing and keeping records and marks; ordering and buying supplies; and, meeting with a supervisor 7 regarding a SWF. Ms. SteIlings indicated that the above are just examples of the types of administrative tasks all Faculty perform, and deelined to provide any more specific infomlation regarding the administrative tasks she herselfperfOlmed during the SWF period at issuc. ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS: 31. The Union maintained its position that the additional hours attributed to Mr, Darrah and the others on their SWFs were not strictly for curriculum development, and argued that consequently Ms, Stellings did not receive complementary hours for meetings for which others were compensated. 32. It is correct that not all of the attributed hours for complementary functions were for curriculum development, as in some instanccs they werc to organize student competitions and shows, or to conduct Outreach, or work on a special project. However, I find the evidence falls short of demonstrating the other Professors were compensated for thc type of collegial collaborative work for which Ms. Stellings seeks attribution of additional hours. 33, The Union also relicd on the following text from the minutes of the G 102 Graphic Design Curriculum Development Meetings, referred to above: 4. Faculty Teams: Faculty will be assigned to teams (sncll as Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, Corporate and Advertising) with an assigned full-limc faculty member as lead, where possible. Tile G 102 Coordinator will facilitate team communication to provide continuity between multiple sections and consistency of projects (approved by Luigi Ferrero). [emphasis added] 34. Specifically, the Union pointed to the highlighted phrase above, and argued that this does not just relate to curriculum development, and is an integral part of the work for which Ms. Stellings is seeking additional attributed hours. However, that highlighted phrase, must be interpreted within the context of the entire paragraph, which in I find clearly contemplates an "assignment" to a team, rather than all Faculty members by default becoming "team members". As Ms, Stellings was not at the meeting, I prefer Mr. Ferrara's evidence that the above reference is to the summer period during which much of the curriculum development work was performed, As the work did not take place during a teaching period, the work would not be reflccted on a SWF in any event. 8 35. The Union also points out that Article 11.02 A 2 provides that SWFs must include all details of the total workload and maintains that the consultations between Ms. Stellings and her colleagues is an assignable complementary function and should be attributed on an hour by hour basis. However, that still begs the question of whether the work at issue is captured by the 2 hours attributed for Administrative Tasks or attracts a separate attribution of hours, Article 11.02 A states: 11,02 A 2 The SWF shall include all details of the total workload including teaching contact hours, accumulated contact days, accumulated teaching contact hours, number of sections, type and number of preparations, type of evaluation/feedback required by the curriculum, class size, attributed hours, contact days, language of instmction and complementary fimctions. 36. The Union also relied on the fact that Ms, Stellings had been attributed time on her previous 2005 and 2007 SWFs. However, she also conceded that this was not a consistent practice. The Union argued that the only thing that had changed was that Mr. Ferrara thought the work should now be subsumed in Ms. Stellings' two hour allocation for administrative tasks. The Union maintained that time was to deal with matters involving the ongoing interaction between the administration of the College and Faculty including monitoring e-mails; keeping abreast of and participate in College events; dealing with Human Resources postings; filling out time sheets; attending SWF and professional development meetings. The Union submitted these are tasks related to the CollegefFaculty relationship and are common to all Faculty, regardless of whether they are teaching a course with others or carry a filII teaching load. 37. The Union also pointed out that the two hours for administrative tasks do not include Departmental Divisional Meetings between the Manager and Supervisor and Faculty, and are listed separately as an assignable complementary function. The Union argued that if any meeting might be considered administrative then surely those meetings would be but that is not the case, The Union maintained that meetings between Faculty arc even further removed from administrative tasks, and submitted that Coordinators are paid on an hour per hour basis for meeting with and coordinating staff. 38. However, as the College argued, many of the tasks described by Ms. Stellings and the Union as administrative tasks, while clearly intended to be subsumed under that heading, are more appropriately described as clerical in nature, In that regard the College relied on four dictionary definitions of "administrative". Of these, the following are of most assistance: 9 Collins Dictionary Administrative work involves organizing and supervising an organization or instihHioll. MacMillan Dictionary Administrative Relating to the management of a company, organization, or institution, BJng Dictionlll'Y administrative Adjective of administra lion; relating to the administration or a business, organization, or institution. 39. The College argued, persuasively, that these definitions suggest a more significant function than the clerical functions described by Ms. SteJlings and the Union regarding what constitutes "administrative tasks". The CoHege also argued that these characterizations of "administrative tasks also overwhelmingly tie into the Class Definition in the Collective Agreement for "Professor" set out below: CLASS DEFINITION PROFESSOR Under the direction of the senior academic officer of the College or designate, a Professor is responsible for providing academic leadership and for developing an effective learning environment for students. This includes: a) The design/revision/updating of courses, including: - consulting with program and course directors and other faculty members, advisory commillees, accrediting agencies, potential employers and students; 10 40. The College submitted that the dcfinitions of administrative task includes being collegial, talking to colleagues and answering their questions about courses as well as handing off materials. The College further submitted that this is consistent with providing academic leadership and contributing to the developmcnt of an effective learning environment for students, as referred to in the Class definition, 41. The Union relied on the following decisions: Algonquin College and OPSEU (comp/ai11lS of Marlaine Finnegan and Maureen Hunka), a decision ofWRA Kathleen O'Neil, February 5, 2002; Fanshaw College and OPSEU (complaint of Kat/llyn Tamasi) a decision of WRA Peter Chauvin, December 12,2008; Fanshaw College and OPSEU (complaint of Kay Wig/e) a decision ofWRA Petcr Chauvin, December 14, 2008; and Algonquin College and OPSEU (comp/aim of Yim Warring/on), a dccision ofWRA Mary Rozenberg, January 28,2002. 42. The Union maintained these cases werc similar to the circumstances in Ms. Stcllings' case, and all resulted in complementary hours being attributed to the complainants' SWFs. 43, There are significant distinctions between the above cases and Ms. SteJlings' circumstances, In all but the complaint ofYim Warrington, it was not disputed that the work at issue had been expressly assigned, and the issue was whether the attribution was adequate. In the complaint of Vim Warrington, there had been a consistent attribution of complementary hours for various meetings which was ended by a new Chair. Further, the decision deals with a number of other issues and provides very few facts on which to draw parallels, For example, the reason for ending the practice was not clear, as the arbitrator states only that the new Chair who changed the practice "may have considered meetings to fall with [sic] the two hours for normal administrative tasks" . 44. While it was not disputed that the type of collegial sharing of information and materials is a required function for Professors as sct out in their Class DefinWon, I do not find that the work was formally "assigned" in the same manner as the cases relicd 011 by thc Union, or the work assigned to Douglas Derrah and others in the Depal'ltnent, rcferred to earlier, and whose SWFs contained additional attl'ibuted hours for complementaty work that had been formally assigned to them. As indicated earlier, I find that work was ofa different nature from the day to day informal eollegial communication regarding common courses which is an integral part of all Professors responsibilities. II 45. Nor do I find Ms. Stellings was attributed complementary hours so consistently in the past for consulting with her colleagues as to suggest that the College's refusal to provide her with the hours she seeks constitutes a deparhlre from past practice. Rather, I accept the College's explanation that the hours were granted before the College considered the practice and determined it was not appropriate. DETERMINATION: 46. It is apparent Ms. SteIlings is a conscientious and collegial member of the Design Department, and it was evident that her assistance was much appreciated by her colleagues, 47. However, for all the reasons set out above, I am not persuaded that Ms. Stellings' informal, sclf- directed collegial collaboration with other Faculty to share information, ideas, and materials, constitutes complementary functions for which she should be attributed additional hours 011 her SWF. Rather, I find this work comes within the two hour allocation for "normal administrative tasks" referred to in Article 11.01 F, 48. Ms. Stellings' complaint regarding her Winter 2010 SWF (January 1 1- April 24) is dismissed. DATED AT TORONTO, THIS 8THDA Y OF SEPTEMBER 2010. "Tania Wacyk" Workload Resolution Arbitrator 12