HomeMy WebLinkAboutPrince 10-10-17
IN A MATTER PURSUANT TO THE
Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008
BETWEEN:
George Brown College
and-
("College")
Ontario Public Service Employees' Union
("Union")
(Workload Complaint of Sonie Prince)
ARBITRA TOR:
Jasbir Parmar
On Behalf of the COllege:
Amanda Hunter, Counsel
On Behalf of the Union:
Damian Wiechula, First Vice-President
Date of Hearing:
Date of Decision:
October 4, 2010
October 17, 2010
1. This decision is in respect of a workload dispute relating to Ms. Sonie Prince's
assignment to teach Nursing 1030,
2. The essential nature of this course is for the students to have an opportunity for
application of their knowledge in a workplace setting. The course is designed to have
fourteen teaching contact hours.
3. Two of these hours take place at the College, with a laboratoryllecture format. Ms.
Prince indicated that it takes her approximately 15 to 20 minutes to prepare for this each
week.
4. The remaining twelve teaching contact hours involve supervision of the students during
their placement two days per week in a clinical setting (in this case a complex continuing
care facility). This includes determining the appropriate assignment of patients to students.
While this is initially done in advance of the placement, it also requires continual monitoring
of the patients and maintaining communication with the facility/staff to ensure the assignment
remains appropriate. A variety of factors may change, such as a change in a patient's
condition, a transfer of the patient, or the timing of certain tests/procedures. Each student is
assigned one to two patients, so Ms. Prince must monitor the status of 7 to 14 patients. It
was noted that because the patients are spread over two separate floors, maintaining
sufficient communication with the facility/staff takes longer in the present case. To ensure
the assignment remains appropriate, Ms. Prince attends at the facility 45 minutes prior to the
students' arrival on the first day, and 30 minutes on the second day.
5. It is also Ms. Prince's responsibility to monitor the care provided to the patients by the
students. Ms. Prince indicated that she is not able to fully and completely monitor patient
care (including the checking of all documentation of medications/treatments) during the day
given the demands of the students. Accordingly, she remains at the facility for 30 minutes at
2
the end of each of the two days, to check documentation of care and obtain feedback from
other staff and patients about the students. This latter information is also used in the
determination of whether the patient assignment remains appropriate.
6. Article 11.01. D. of the collective agreement addresses the weekly hours for preparation
that are to be attributed for each course, It contemplates the application of different
formulas, referred to as "Special 8", where the objective of the course is for student
application of knowledge in a work setting. There is no issue that Nursing1030 is a "Special
B" course. Ms. Prince has been attributed 8.4 hours per week for preparation consistent with
the applicable formula, "Established B" (on a 1 :0.60 basis). There is no dispute about the
application of this formula.
7. The issue in dispute centers around the last paragraph of Article 11.01.0.3 (viii), which
states:
Additional time necessary to arrange and prepare for student placement in such
learning situations shaU be attributed on an hour for hour basis and recorded on the
Standard Workload Form (SWF) , as referred to in 11.02.
8. The Union's submits that the time Ms. Prince spends at the clinical setting before the
students arrive and after the students leave should be deemed to be additional attributed
preparation hours consistent with this paragraph. It was suggested that the preparation
hours attributed under Established B are for marshalling the academic material an instructor
already knows. It was submitted that extra work was involved in this case for the student
placements given the dynamic nature of the clinical setting and the importance of ensuring
the safety of the patients at aU times.
9. On the other hand, the Employer submits that although the placement of the students in
this clinical setting does require preparatory work, that preparation has already been
accounted for in the Established B formula.
2
3
10. Article 11.01.0.3 (viii) is silent as to what preparatory tasks are specifically
contemplated as being included in the hours attributed for preparation in the standard
"Special B" formulas. However, it was acknowledged that all courses that fit within "Special
B" involve student placements. Thus, a certain amount of preparation time in relation to
student placements is common to the delivery of all Special B courses. In such
circumstances, it is a reasonable inference that the attributed hours for preparation in the
standard "special B" formulas include the task of arranging and preparing for student
placements. To conclude otherwise would mean that the parties agreed to a standard
formula to reflect the amount of preparatory work required for such courses, but intended to
exclude work that was common to the delivery of all such courses. That is not likely, given
the very purpose of the formula is to account for the amount of work generally required for
the delivery of these types of courses.
11. The last paragraph of Article 11.01.D.3 (viii) does provide for additional attributed hours
for the task of arranging and preparing for student placements. However, I observe that the
phrase "additional time" is used, and not just "time". This further supports the inference that
the attributed preparation hours of the "Special B" formulas includes time spent arranging
and preparing for student placements, This last paragraph appears to address situations
where "additional time" for this task is required.
12. In the present case, I accept that the nature of the clinical setting for this course, with its
importance of communicating with facility staff and ensuring the safety of patients, may be
distinct among the programs offered by the College. However, the information provided
about the preparation involved for such student placements does not indicate that the
amount of preparatory work itself is unique. I observe that the collective agreement prOVides
for additional attributed hours based on the amount of work (that is, "additional time"), and
not just the nature of the work.
3
4
13. I have noted that the College Workload Management Group allowed Ms. Prince 1.5
additional attributed preparation hours per week in respect of this same course in the winter
semester of 2010. I also have noted that in 1986, another Workload Resolution Arbitrator,
E,W. Holmes, determined additional attributed hours for preparation for student placements
for this course should be allowed. However, I cannot tell from the documentation relating to
these determinations how the decisionMmakers concluded that such preparatory time was not
sufficiently accounted for in the applicable Special B formula. As such, I find them to be of
limited assistance to my determination in the present case.
14. In total, Ms. Prince indicated she spends 2 hours and 15 minutes a week at the facility
communicating with staff and monitoring patient status. She also noted she spends up to
about 20 minutes per week preparing for the labl/ecture. I appreciate she must also engage
in "marshalling of academic information", including keeping current in College of Nurses'
requirements and protocols. However, there was no Information upon which to conclude that
the preparation time for the student placements is not sUfficiently accounted for in the 8.4
hours per week of preparation already attributed to the delivery of this course, which is
focused on student placements.
15. As such, I find that no additional attributed preparatory hours are warranted in the
present case.
16, Ms. Prince's workload complaint is dismissed.
Dated at Oakville, Ontario, this 1ih day of October, 2010.
4