HomeMy WebLinkAboutHastie et al 23-09-121
IN THE MATTER OF WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATIONS
B E T W E E N:
CAMBRIAN COLLEGE
(the “College”)
- AND-
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
(the “Union”)
AND IN THE MATTER OF WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATIONS FOR
MICHAEL HASTIE, ROBERT CLEMENT, ELENA MURPHY, HADI FERGANI, AND
KATHERINE BRUCE
APPEARANCES FOR THE COLLEGE
Marc Saini Director, Human Resources
Kim Crane Chair Schools of Engineering
Technology and Environmental Studies
Nicole Dzivy Manager, Employee Relations
Brian Lobban Dean, Schools of Skills Training, Engineering
Technology, and Environmental Studies
APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION
Neil Shyminsky President, OPSEU, Local 655
Chris Vuorensyrja
A Hearing in these Matters was held by videoconference on August 29, 2023
2
AWARD
This Award concerns the workload resolution grievances of five Professors each
alleging a violation of Article 11 of the collective agreement. All the complaints concern
the issue of the appropriate factor to be attributed for evaluation and feedback of certain
courses on their respective Standard Workload Forms (SWF’s) for the fall semester of
2023. More specifically the issue is whether the method of evaluation is in the nature of
an “essay or project” or are “routine or assisted” or a blend of the two as these terms
are used in the collective agreement.
The grievors all teach different courses and each of the grievances were considered
separately.
The relevant provisions of the collective agreement provide as follows;
RATIO OF ASSIGNED TEACHING CONTACT HOURS
TO ATTRIBUTED HOURS FOR EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK
Essay or project Routine or Assisted In-Process
1:0.030 1:0.015 1:0.0092
per student per student 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
3
(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.
(iii) “In-process evaluation and feedback” is evaluation performed within
the teaching contact hour.
(iv) Where a course requires more than one type of evaluation and
feedback, the teacher and the supervisor shall agree upon a
proportionate attribution of hours. If such agreement cannot be
reached the College shall apply evaluation factors in the same
proportion as the weight attached to each type of evaluation in the
final grade for the course.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
On behalf of the Union, it was submitted that the method of evaluation set out in the
course descriptions of each of the grievors were in the nature of “essay or project” and
therefore should have received the attribution of 1:0.030 per student. In Seneca
College and OPSEU, Local 560, unreported, 2001 (H. Snow), the arbitrator commented
at pp. 5-6 as follows:
16…“Short answer tests are normally used to ensure that a student has
absorbed certain pieces of information and can repeat them…
17. What then of the ‘essay or project’ category? Some time was provided in
class but much of the work had to be done outside class hours. In that
sense, the samples are like many student projects. Like projects, these are
works created by the student which, hopefully, demonstrate that the student
both understands 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.”
It was also emphasized that, to the extent the College used a proportionate application
pursuant to article 11.01 E 2 (iv), the College did not demonstrate how this
4
proportionality was arrived at, and from the Union’s perspective there is a degree of
arbitrability to this assessment.
The Union submitted and many of the grievors indicated that evaluation of student work
has, over the years taken longer because of the need to take the time to check against
plagiarism.
Reference was also made by the Union to the decisions in Algonquin College and
OPSEU Local 415, unreported, 2010 (L. Slotnick), Centennial College and OPSEU,
Local 558, unreported, 2002 (B. Herlich), Cambrian College and OPSEU Local 655,
unreported, 2018 (N. Jesin), and Durham College and OPSEU, Local 354, unreported,
2021 (P. Knopf).
On behalf of the College it was submitted that the course description of most of the
SWF’s in dispute indicated that part of the evaluations were of the “essay or project”
type and part were “routine or assisted” and therefore it was appropriate to have a
proportionate attribution of hours as set out in article 11.01 E 2(iv).
Reference was made to the decision in Cambrian College and OPSEU, Local
unreported, 1992 (A. Huneault) where at p. 3, in finding that the appropriate evaluation
factor is 0.015, the Arbitrator made the following comments:
The assignment under both components of the course are not in my view
essay type or projects which would justify an evaluation factor of .03. In
evaluating these projects Mr. Levesque is not required to assess student
reasoning, organization, or ideas. Under the theory component, the
answers given by students are short and the answers cannot vary much in
content. Under the practical component of the course, I find that the
evaluation done is repetitious and customary. All students work from the
same in-house equipment and it is not as if he is evaluating different
projects on different pieces of equipment which he is unfamiliar with.
5
The College denied that its application of the proportionate attribution of hours provided
for in article 11.01 E 2 (iv) was arbitrary and stated that, in such circumstances, the
attribution had always been on a 50 – 50 or 65 – 35 per cent basis.
The Union did not agree with this submission and stated that in certain cases the
attribution had been 75 – 25 or 90 -10.
The College also pointed out that in many of the SWF’s under consideration in this
proceeding the course outline provided that 10% of the evaluation would be based on
Student Performance which in its submission is not within the meaning of “essay or
project” and justified a proportionate attribution of hours.
Reference was also made by the College to the decision in Algonquin College and
OPSEU, unreported, 2002, (K. O’Neil).
DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN
EVALUATING THE APPLICATION OF ATTRIBUTED HOURS ON A SWF PURSUANT
TO ARTICLE 11.01 E 2 OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
I have commenced with these comments in order to indicate the considerations I have
applied to each of SWF ’s under consideration in this Arbitration. With respect to the
courses in dispute, all the grievors submitted that the evaluation factor should be “essay
or project”.
6
This collective agreement applies to all community colleges in Ontario covering many
thousands of teachers, who teach disparate courses, and SWF’s are developed and
applied by a wide variety of administrators across the province.
Article 11 has been in the collective agreement for many decades, and has not
changed through renewal collective agreements. Article 11 is primarily a negotiated
method of establishing workload by attributing hours for various tasks. Article 11.01 E 2
sets the attribution for “essays or projects” at 1:0.030 presumably because it takes more
time to evaluate essays than it does to evaluate short answer tests which are called
“routine or assisted” and have an attribution factor of 1:0.015.
“Routine or assisted” is defined in the collective agreement as grading by the teacher
outside teaching contact hours of short answers, whereas “Essay or project” has a more
expansive definition which includes essays, essay type assignments or tests and
projects.
It is beyond the scope of this arbitration to resolve issues such as the uneven
application of Article 11 between departments. It is also beyond the scope of this one
day arbitration to resolve issues of time taken to check for plagiarism, whether
proportionate application has been calculated in accordance with article 11.01 E 2(iv), or
issues of how evaluations based in part on student performance are to be treated.
These are important issues but I received insufficient information concerning them to
make an informed decision.
Rather, I have focused on the individual SWF’s, course outlines presented, the
statements of the individual grievors, and have asked whether the evaluations are in the
7
nature of “essay or project” or in the nature of “routine or assisted”, or whether there
should be a proportionate attribution of hours.
This is a difficult determination because the collective agreement provides little
guidance. Essay assignments in a humanities course can, for the most part, be seen as
attracting the attribution of 1:0.030 because they involve time in reading the assignment,
assessing the analysis and presentation, and assigning a grade. There may be no
single right answer, or to the extent there is a right answer, time must be spent to
analyze how the student arrived at the answer. On the other hand, multiple choice
questions which have a single correct answer are more quickly and easily assessed and
are assigned the attribution of 1:0.015. Between these two examples however are a
vast array of types of evaluations which create a broad grey area that are not
characterized easily or conveniently.
During the hearing reference was made to the fact that, in some circumstances, the
attributed hours for evaluation and feedback had been changed downwards from what it
was in prior semesters for the same course. I have not taken this fact into account. The
parties in articles 11.02 F 5, and 11.02 F 6 of the collective agreement indicate that the
process for evaluating a SWF should be informal and the results are to be time limited.
Just as I do not believe the Union can rely on the attributed hours for the same course
in prior SWF ’s, the College, in another context, could not rely on a Professor’s failure to
grieve an attribution in a prior semester.
These articles provide as follows:
11.02 F 5
8
A WRA shall determine appropriate procedure. The WRA shall commence
proceedings within two weeks of the referral of the matter to the WRA. It is
understood that the procedure shall be informal, that the WRA shall
discuss the matter with the teacher, the teacher’s supervisor, and
whomever else the WRA considers appropriate.
11.02 F 6
A WRA shall, following the informal discussion referred to above, issue a
written award to the College and the Union Local and to the teacher
resolving the matter. Such award shall be issued by the WRA within ten
working days of the informal discussion. The award shall only have
application to the teacher affected by the matter and shall have no
application beyond the end of a twelve-month period from the date of the
beginning of the workload assignment.
With the above comments in mind I have, with respect to each grievor, considered the
totality of the evidence to determine whether the evaluation method requires the
exercise of judgement in analyzing and assessing the assignments provided by
students or whether it is more in the nature of short answer assessments which have an
answer which is readily apparent to a teacher.
THE GRIEVANCE OF PROFESSOR MICHAEL HASTIE
The SWF prepared by the College for both CHM1301 and CHM 1303 which are both
Chemistry Lab courses for the fall semester of 2023 provided a blended evaluation
attribution factor of 0.0248 being 65% essay and 35% routine
The course description for CHM1301 provides:
In this course, student will employ various analytical techniques within a
laboratory environment. This lab course will involve wet chemical
techniques utilizing gravimetric and volumetric analytical procedures.
9
Students will work with acids, bases and buffers in order to have chemical
environments in which the desired chemical reactions can occur. Student
will be exposed to proper reporting units for various analytes, and will be
expected to report results in a manner consistent with industrial practices.
Precision and accuracy of analytical values will be emphasized, and
concepts of quality control and quality assurance along with statistical
analysis will be covered.
The Evaluation Method indicates that 100% of the grade will be based on lab reports
and states as follows:
Students will conduct labs weekly. Most labs are designed to be
completed within a one week period, but there may be some that span two
weeks. For this reason, there will be up to 10 lab reports generated
throughout the term.
The course description for CHM1303 provides:
In this course, students will be exposed to various instruments used in
chemical analyses. This course allows the student opportunities to work
with the instruments and techniques that are covered in the Instrumental
Analysis 1 Theory course. Learning will involve student analysis of
samples using the chemical instruments present within our laboratories.
Students will employ sampling and preparation techniques for suitable
analyses of materials obtained from process systems or from
environmental settings. Students will learn to utilize the instruments to
determine qualitative characteristics of the materials in samples as well as
quantitative values relating to concentration of analytes where appropriate
in samples. Students will maintain control charts for certain instrumental
analyses and will include Quality Assurance samples within their sample
queues Quality Assurance/Quality Control will also be incorporated by
having the student establish a series of double blind tests.
The Evaluation Method provides that there will be four major submissions each of which
will be assessed as 15%, smaller submissions that occur on a weekly basis comprising
30%, and a reflective journal for 10%.
10
In his submission Professor Hastie reviewed several sample lab reports submitted by
students. The reports are 5-6 pages in length consisting of various sections including
theory, purpose, apparatus, sample calculations, procedure, sample and data,
discussion, conclusion, and references.
He indicated that in order to determine a final grade for each report the following had to
be considered: ensure that the data submitted matches the data generated by the
student in the lab; re-calculating the student’s calculations to ensure they are correct;
ensuring that the sections of the report are included and in the right order; reading the
content to ensure that the theory includes the concept that led to the lab itself and that
the discussion explains what was performed during the lab including the reason for
each step.
With respect to CHM1301 the lab reports, are the sole basis for student evaluation in
this course and I have concluded they are in the nature of “essays or projects” because
they require the exercise of judgement and discretion in analyzing the assignment and
should therefore be attributed as 1:0.030 per student. Professor Hastie’s SWF for this
course should therefore be amended accordingly.
With respect to CHM1303 the evaluation method is comprised of 60% lab reports, which
are akin to essays and 30% to smaller weekly tests. I was not provided with examples
of these tests, and can only accept what the course description refers to as being
“smaller weekly tests”. I have therefor concluded that they are in the nature of “routine
or assisted” evaluations because the answer is readily apparent to the teacher.
Accordingly, the 0.0248 attribution is appropriate and the grievance with respect to this
course is dismissed.
11
THE GRIEVANCE OF PROFESSOR ROBERT CLEMENT
The SWF prepared by the College for ELN 2320 Lab course provided an evaluation
attribution factor of 0.015.
The course description for ELN2320 provides:
In this course, students will be introduced to the fundamental theory
and characteristics of AC Sine waveforms, common semi-conductor
devices and their specifications and applications. They will review
atomic structure and electric fields produced by static. The student
shall be introduced to circuits containing rectifier diodes.
Unregulated power supplies making use of half wave and full wave
rectification will be examined. Students will examine fundamental
clamping and clipping circuits. Passively regulated circuits
employing Zener diodes will be discussed. Related topics such as
transformer s, filtering, and circuit protection are covered. The use of
transistors (BJTs and Fets) configured as electronic switches will be
introduced. The main characteristic drive requirements and their
switching response will be investigated. Finally, the students will be
able to demonstrate proper setup and use of oscilloscopes.
The Evaluation Method will be: 60% based on four tests of equal weight, and there will
be approximately 10 different lab experiments, four which will be graded for 40% of the
grade.
I reviewed the four Test examples presented and the Lab report examples. In my view
the Tests are akin to “routine assisted” inasmuch as they are short answer questions,
many of which are multiple choice which can easily and quickly be assessed by the
Professor. On the other hand, the Lab reports are considerably longer, and much more
12
detailed and are in the nature of “essays or projects” because they require the exercise
of judgment in analyzing and assessing the assignment and assigning a grade.
I have therefor concluded that Professor Clement’s SWF should be amended to indicate
a proportionate attribution of 0.0248.
THE GRIEVANCE OF ELANA MURPHY
The SWF prepared by the College for GEO2305 and MNG2340 provided for a blended
evaluation attribution 0.0225, which is 50% essay and 50% routine.
The course description for GEO2305 provides as follows:
In this course students will acquire skills necessary for field and
underground mapping, including: use of Brunton and Silva compasses,
pacing, plotting, sketching, layout and use of a field grid, use of maps
and/or photos for control, and use of GPSW for navigation and location.
Students will learn to draw finished maps and interpret sections manually,
and to prepare a simple geological report. This course invol ves the
solution of two and three dimensional problems related to mineral
exploration and mine development.
The evaluation method provides that there will be weekly fieldwork or in-class
assignments each taking 1-3 weeks to complete for 90% and Professional Conduct for
10%.
The course description for MNG2340 provides:
In this course, students will learn to use a variety of software in
technological applications. Students will cover topics including transfer of
data between applications; advanced internet search techniques,
13
advanced word-processing techniques for technical purpose; advanced
spreadsheet applications; design, construction editing of technical
drawings and illustrations using graphic design software. Students will
convert geological field maps to digital maps using scanning and digitizing
technology, complete and integrate geological interpretation into digital
maps in sections; and prepare digital components for a simple geological
field report.
The Evaluation Method provides that there will be a minimum of 7 computer-based
projects, each taking between 1-3 weeks to complete, with their mark weighted
according to difficulty and the length of time allotted for completion for 90% and
Professional Conduct for 10%.
Having reviewed the materials submitted I have concluded that a portion of the
evaluation in the nature of “essay or project” and a component of the grading for both of
these courses is a review of maps submitted by students, and assessing the
correctness and accuracy of the maps. In my view this is similar to grading short
answer tests because the answer is readily apparent to a teacher.
A proportionate attribution of 0.0225 is therefor appropriate and the grievances with
respect to these two courses is therefore dismissed.
THE GRIEVANCE OF HADI FERGANI
The SWF prepared by the College for course CHM1163 for the fall semester of 2023
provided for a blended evaluation factor of 0.0248 being 65% essay and 35% routine.
The course description for this course provides:
14
In this course, students will learn laboratory safety and the proper use of
lab equipment and glassware. Students will perform experiments
supporting the theory they learn in CHM1162, including experiments
involving stoichiometry, solutions, acids and bases.
The Evaluation Method provides that 75% of the grade will be based on up to 10
assessments in the form of labs and/or assignments. Labs will have increasing
weightings based on incremental expectations, 30% of the lab mark will be awarded for
experiment completion and 70% for report submission. 5% of the grade will be based on
Pre-Lab quizzes.
The lab reports presented are akin to “essays or projects”. There are other components
of the evaluation such as completion of the experiments and pre-Lab quizzes, which are
more akin to grading short answer tests and are in the nature of “routine or assisted”. I
have therefore concluded that a blending of the evaluation attribution is justified and that
a factor of 0.0248 is appropriate.
This grievance is therefor dismissed.
THE GRIEVANCE OF KATHERINE BRUCE
The SWF prepared by the College for the courses MNG1101 and MNG2303 for the fall
semester of 2023 assigned an evaluation attribution factor of 0.0225 being 50 essay,
and 50% routine.
The course description for MNG1101 provided:
15
In this course, students will have a basic understanding, and be able to
describe primary operating functions, processes, and equipment utilized in
Canadian surface and underground mining operations. Students will
examine a number of common ore extraction and mine development
techniques and will demonstrate that they understand basic mining
industry concepts and terminology. Students will be able to solve simple
grade control problems, productivity rates, and three dimensional
problems.
The Evaluation Method provided for a maximum of 10 applied activities for 50%, two
theory tests of equal value for 20%, up to 10 terminology quizzes for 20% and
Professional Conduct for 10%.
Having reviewed the assignments submitted, I have concluded that the evaluation
method is a combination of “essay or projects” and “routine or assisted”. The
proportionate evaluation factor of .0225 is therefore appropriate and the grievance with
respect to this course is therefore dismissed.
The course description for MNG 2303 provided:
In this course students will be introduced to the importance of
maintenance programs for mine mobile and fixed plant equipment
(including conveyors). The importance of workplace safety and
preventative maintenance will be emphasized. Student will be introduced
to various mining equipment (include BEV), company maintenance
organization, recognition of hazards, safety standards, and procedures.
Student will utilize various maintenance planning software as available.
The Evaluation Method Provided for up to 10 projects of equal value for 50%, up to 5
assignments related to the application of technology to mine equipment for 40% and
Professional Conduct for 10%.
The material submitted indicates that a portion of the grade is based on projects or lab
assignments which is akin to assessing “essay or project” assignments and a portion is
based on mapping techniques which would attract the “routine or assisted” attribution.
16
The 0.0225 proportionate evaluation is appropriate, and the grievance with respect to
this course is therefore dismissed.
SUMMARY
Michael Hastie CHMI1301 Amend Evaluation Factor to 0.030
CHMI1303 Continue Evaluation Factor as 0.0248
Robert Clement ELN2320 Amend Evaluation Factor to 0.0248
Elana Murphy GEO2305 Continue Evaluation Factor as 0.0225
MNG2340 Continue Evaluation Factor as 0.0225
Hadi Fergani CHM1163 Continue Evaluation Factor as 0.0248
Katherine Bruce MNG1101 Continue Evaluation Factor as 0.0225
MNG2302 Continue Evaluation Factor as 0.0225
I will remain seized should there be any difficulty in the interpretation or implementation
of this Award.
Dated at Maberly, Ontario this 12th day of September, 2023
David Starkman