Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoone 81-08-17 .Au~ 17/~1 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATIO~ ) BETWEEN: ST. LAWRENCE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS k~D TECHNOLOGY. AND ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVk~CE OF B. BOONE BOARD OF ARBITRATION: J.F. N. Wea.therill r Chairman R. Cochrane, Union Nominee K. Hallsworth, College Nominee .. A hearing in this matter was held at ottawa on May 26 and May 28r 1981. C. Paliare for the Union C.F. Murray for the College A~vARD ( In this grievance, dated January 25, 1979, the grievor alleges that she is improperly classified. Her classification is that of Instructor, and it is claimed that she should be in the higher classification of Teaching Master. The grievor was first employed by the College as a sessional (part-time) employee, in 1974. She became a full-time "Instructor the follmving year ,and has been in that classification ever since. In 1978, the report of the Classification Review Committee (the "Swan reportll) was issued. That committee had been established by the parties to consider the necessity for, and the appropriate definition of the classification of Instructor. Following the I issuing of that report the grievor1s duties, which had included both classroom and laboratory teaching, were changed and her assignments were to laboratory teaching exclusively. It is with respect to such assignments that the issue in this case is to be determined. There are two teaching classifications in the collective agreement, namely Teaching Master and Instructor. Neither 1S defined in the collective agreeernent. The final report of the Classification Review Committee does, however, set out a definition of Instructor, and it is with regard to that definition -3- that the instant case ~s to be decided. The definition is as follows: "\." cr.;.ss DE?~~:::O~t - I~JS~:!''JC!O? ./ The rNSTRcr~OR classi=iea~ion ao~lies to ~~OS2 teachi~~ ?ositiO~3 ~~e=~ ~~; du~ies ~nd r~s?onsibil~ti2s ol the i~c~~e~~ a:e l~i:=d ~o ~~a~ ?ort~o~ of the total soec~~~~ 0: &cacg~c -ac~iv~~ias =ela~~d to t~e provisi;n o! i~s~~cti=~ ~~ assiS~ec ;rou~s 0: student~ th=ouS~ ?re9a=a~ cou~se5 c= ir~~=uction a~~ ac=or~i~g to p=esc:ibed ins~=~e~~:n~ =o~ats; ~~C !i~i~2d to ins~:uc~on ~=e~t2d to ~h~ acquisition 0: a oani?ula- tive- skil~ 0':: :~c::..."""..i~"!'e1 a..~d U.....1Ca::- :.he:' di=ec~ion at"'a.. te-~e~~....~ oast.eI:'. Noto:...rit...'"1s:.3.ndi::; st.:ch. o~esc.::i?t:ion,. !:;,.e. ~STRU~R is res?onsi~~a ;or and has the f=2e~c~ eo ?~ovic. a lea=~L~g enviro~~e~~ ~hi=~ ~a~es eff2:cti".re use o~ -:.::.e :-esc:.:.r:::es ?=::)'vic~i!. or ic.an.ti.Eiec.-, +.10::0:< e;,,':).::!-~!!ce, .'field ~=::.:::s, etc..., ~:'!d to Select suiCabl~ !ea=n~~; ~aca~ial~ ==o~ ~~csa ?=ov~cae O~ id2;"Ltif!.2d to :a-::i.:!.1.t~:e ::-..~ at.ta.:.f....-:-.ent b1f t:.~~ s-:'''.Jc.ents of the ed~Ca~o~al o~jec~i~~s oi t~~ assis~ec cou~ses. The !~rST?!':C"!OR' 5 c,1.:.:.:es a:1G. ~es?ons.:.:;'lli ties incluc.e ~ - en~~i~~ stc~e~~ ,~a=a~eS3 ot cou=se o~j~c~!ves, inst=Uctio~el '?P~O~C~, ~~d avaluation s7s~ems; carryi~g out ~9~~la=1? s~~gd~!~c i~s~~~c~lon accord- ing to the fo==~t ?res~=i=ec :0= t~e cou=se, incluci~g as a9?ro9=!at2 class==c=~ la~o=atc=y,. she?, fielct semina:, co~?u~er-a5sis~~a# inci~icualiza~ lea~i~g, ~~d o~~er ins~~uctiQna~ tech~i~~~s; tutorin~ and acac~~c ~o~~s~llinq of st~e~~~s in the assi~ac S=oC?S; eValua~icg st~~e~~ ?=o~~ass/ac~iav~~nt, ass~ing respo~si~i~ity ~o= ~~e o~~ra!l ass~5s~a~~ of the 5tuee~~sr ~or~ yi:hi~ t~e assig~2c co~~se, a~d Qaintai~inq r~c~=cs as ~e~~i=ec; consul.t::ing ......it..,.", t..":.@ ":'e~c~'"1.q ::-~aste!;'s !;."es;o::sible fo= the courses 0: i~s:~~~~~ q~ the e~f=c~iv~n2ss of the ins~ructio~ in at~ai~i~~ ~~a s~a=ed ?=oq=a~ objectives. In adcit~cn, ~~e ~5~~aCTO~ ~y, {~o~ t~.e to ~~e, be call~d ~~on ~o co~~~i~~t~ to .ot~~= ac~ivities ancilla~j to tne p:ovision 0: ihst~~c~o~, s~c~ as pro=ur~~n~ ~~~ con~ro! o! !~st=cc~!o~a2 s~??!i~s a~d Qainc~n~,ce a~d cont=ol o~ L~s~~c=ional ~~~?~en~_ " -4- The grievor, during the period covered by the evidence, taught a number of courses said to be ltlaboratory" courses. Some of these were designed to complement related lecture - \ courses, taught by others, while others stood on their own. In a general way, the issue in this case may be sai~ to be whether or not the grievor's instructional work is "directed to the acqui- sition of a manipulative skill" or technique". It was the employer's position that such was the nature of the grievor's work. It was the union's position that the grievor's work was directed more to the cognitive than to'the manipulative area. We would note, in .this respect, that the classification defiriition set out above provides that the classification is to be "limited" to instruction directed to the acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique. The grlevor has a diploma in medical technology, and worked for some years as a medical technologist. She is presently vlorking toward a B.A. degree in Life Sciences at Queen:s University. She has, as we have noted, been a full-time Instructor at St. Lawrence College since 1975. During the period prior the Swan report the grievor had designed and developed a course in Clinical Haematology for animal care students and had, as we have noted, done considerable classroom teaching. It would seem likely that, applying the definition later formulated in the Swan report, the -5- gri~vor's duties would in fact have brought her within the classification of Teaching Master ,rather than that of Instructor at that earlier time. That. question is not before us, however, and the grievor's duties have changed, as we have noted. In the academic year 1979-1980, she was involved in the teaching of some six laboratOJ::Y courses. Many.,of these courses, by reason of numbers of students, or the nature of their programs, were taught in sections, so that others beside the gr~evor would teach the same course. In most cases, but not all, the laboratory course taught by the grievor was cornplernentar1 to a lecture course taught by a Teaching Master. In such capes, the degree of liaison between the Teaching Master and the grievor seems to have varied. In no case, as we find from the evidence, was any very significant' degree of direction or instruction given by a Teaching Master to the grievor with respect to the content or conduct of her courses, and in some cases it is clear that the grievor herself prepared, to a substantial degree, the teaching materials used in the laboratories. -6- in Biological Techniques, the grievor was engaged in a three-hour per week course on the use of the microscope for biological samples. There werp four sections of this course, and the grievor taught one section, along with another teacher, who was a Teaching Master. Each section of the course had a Teaching Master, and in some cases there were two. In the grievorts case, she did not act under the direction c~ the Teaching Master, but rather gave guidance to him,' as "he" had "DOt: taught the course before. It is not clear that the grievor was .formally directed to be in charge of the section, but is at least clear that sne was not acting under a Teaching Master's direction. The course was not complementary to a lecture course. There was a lab manual for the course, but it did not cover all aspects of the course and was not, according to the evidence, a hhow-to" book. While one aspect of the course certainly seems to have been the instruction of students in the correct use of the microscope and correct preparation of slides - so that the acquisition of "manipulative skill" was indeed an important object of the course - the evidence lS that the main thrust of the course was to train students to identify what was seen on the slides. To this end, the grievor's classes began with a lecture period'of up to an hour, in which the concepts involved in or illustrated by the day's work were explained. -7- In the employer's evidence, it is suggested that this amount of .lecture time was exceSSlve. We do not judge that matter, but it is to be noted that there was a \ Teaching Master at least sharing the work of the course, and that there would appear to have been liaison with the other sections of the course in order to evaluate students on a uniform basis. There is no suggestion that the grievor's students' results were in any significant way different from those of other groups, or that. her teaching was in any way inadequate. In General Chemistry, the grievor, alone, taught four sections of three hours per week to first year science students. This laboratory course was a common complement to two separate lecture courses. As a result, there was consid- . erablevariation in the backgrounds and programs of the students in the grievor's labs. This affected the presentation of the lab in each case. The grievor made her own judgilient as to the format of the course, lecturing at the outset of each class, but adapting the lecture to the needs of that class as she assessed them. There was a lab manual, prepared by a Teaching Master, but it did not cover all areas of the course, and was arranged so as to give considerable flexibility -8- to the teacher using it. As to actual laboratory procedures there was, again, a requirement of instruction in the necessary skills of handling the equipment Or carrying out basic laboratory - - - \ procedures. Beyond this, however, there was a critique not only of demonstrated skill, but also of test results and their evaluation. There were daily quizzes and occasional written tests. We would note, in pass-ing, that instruction \vflose - efficacity is measurable by a written test is not, we should thlnk, likely to be instruction in a purely umanipulative skillu. Such skills are more likely to be tested by some practical examination. In Clinical Chemistry, the grievor taught the laboratory portion of a course which included a lecture portion. The grievor had, in the past, done a major revision of both portions of this course, and the lectures she gave as a part- of the lab- oratory course were based on material which she had developed herself. That is not to say that it was original material: it would appear to have been a compilation from various sources, but it ylaS certainly not the uprescribed instructional format" contemplated by the definition of the Instructor classification. This was, according to the employer's evidence, simply a course in how to do the routine clinical chemical procedures encountered. -9- in a veterinarian's office, and that is surely so. But it is not the merely mechanical aspects of those procedures that "Were taught. These were techniques informed "- by a certain level of theoretical knowledge. At the conclusion of the course, students were expected to select, and then to perf o rill and interpret the appropriate tests for a given problem. Such a performance ~~olves the exercise of manipulative skills, of course'~' But it- calls for more than that, and the grievor's course was taught accordingly. Again, the evidence is that the teaching in this course was not directed by a Teaching Master. In Organic Chemistry, the grievor's laboratory was one of number of sections given as a complement to a lecture' course. The manual was prepared by a Teaching Master, who also taught one of the sections. The grievor, as in the other labs, would lecture students on:.the principles involved in the day's work. While relatively simple mani-' pul~tive skills were involved, students were required to identify functional chemi~al groups, a task not dealt with in tI:~ .manual, and call ing for a Gertain .degree of theoretical . understanding. The evidence is somewhat conflicting as to the role of the Teaching Master in this course. There was -10- discussion with him as to how all four sections "-lere to be handled, but apart from that there seems to have been little if any actual direction as to the conduct of the labs. \ In Clinical Haematology the grievor's laboratory course was complementary to a lecture course. The grievor nevertheless lectured students on the topics specific to each dayl~ work. Her lecture material was not vetted by anyone. Ba'S"ic'skills- were learned early in the course and then the major part of the work. related to cell differentiation. This aspect of the course was not covered in the manual, and can scarcely be considered a manipulative skill. There was consultation with the Teaching Master with respect to the final evaluation of stu~~nts,~ since results from the lecture and laboratory courses were combined. In Biochemistry, the grievor taught the laboratory complement of a lecture course, but in 1979-80 the lecture course was not given. In this case, the grievor's lectures, preceding the lab work in each class, were more substantial than usual, which seems' proper in the circumstances. The laboratory involved new ,., techniques, such as dissection, as well as "\vha t 'l,vas rel9-tively advanced work in genetics. The manipulative skills would be of a more complex order, and the theoretical requirement was sub- stantial. -11- From all of the foregoing, it is clear that in. every laboratory course taught by the grievor the teaching of manipulative skills is an irnpor~ant aspect: students must know how to use microscopes, to set up laboratory equipment and conduct tests with it, and generally to handle the supplies and tools found in a laboratory. The grievor's courses went well beyond that, however, _and included, as we should think they would necessarily "ha-ve. to do, instruction in the theoretical basis of the jobs being done, and in the evaluation and understanding of test results.. What the grievor taught was partially, but not entirelYr pursuant to "prepared courses of instruction~ or "according to pre~cribed instructional formats". Her work was little more than nominally (and sometimes not that) , under the direction of a Teaching Master, and while it in- eluded instruction IIdirected to the acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique", it went well beyond that. It is not, we would add, a case of the grievor's increasing the scope of her work improperly by unilateral action; the manner of her instruction was, in our view,_ quite proper. It made use of the flexibility contemplated by the manualsr it was appropria~e to the subject-matter, and the Teaching Masters and others were aware of the grievor's teaching methods. -12- It is, therefore, our conclusion that the grievor's duties and responsibilities go beyond those of an Instructor as set out in the classification definition. It follows that the grievor should properly have been classified as a Teaching-Master. The grievance therefore is allowed. It is our award that the grievor be reclassified as a Teaching Master, and compensated for loss of earnings. This board remains siezed of the matter of compensation, in the event the parties are unable to agree thereon. DATED AT TORONTO, this 17th day of August, 1981 ~<--~ Chairman "I concur. R'. Cochrane" Union Nominee College Nominee IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ST. LAWRENCE COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY \" AND ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE OF B. BOONE ADDENDU~1 Hhile I am in agreement with the Chairman1s award in this gnevance> there are a number of comments I believe I should make. The terms of reference for the classifications .of teaching staff in a community college provided by the Classification Review Committee present considerable difficulty to one familiar with more orthodox programs in private industry. The Final Report does not contain a Class Definition for Teaching Masters defining their duties and responsibilities and establishing the minimum standards of education, training and experience required for entry into that higher, classification. - 2 - Instead, by the nature of their mandate, the Review Committee felt limited to establishing a Class Definition for Instructors, the lower classification. Apparently, any Instructor, no matter how narrow his or her discipline, who is required or permitted to step even marginally beyond the boundaries of the Instructor Classification, escapes as-a full- blown Tea eh i.ng Mas ter . And the boundaries to the Instructor Classification can be made as narrow or as wide as the interpreter decides to make them, depending on whether the.emphasis is placed on the limitations set out in the first paragraph of the Class Definition, or the freedoms described as modifying the earlier prescription. One can visualize the most restrictive definition of an Instructor describing a computerized robot programmed to demonstrate manipulative techniques and voicing _pre-recorded lectures. The broadest definition could be stretched to encompass all teachers except those not under the direction of a Teaching Naster and those responsible for defining course objectives and for curriculum development, as long as their, instruction is directed to the acquisition of a manipulative skill or technique. .. To the extent that this system permits the entry of unqualified or marginally qualified teachers into the Teaching t~aster Classification, then that classification can be degraded, and the education of students can be affected. - 3 - Having applied even a generous interpretation of the Class Definition - Instructor, I am forced to the conclusion that the grievor in this case had duties and responsibilities \'Iell beyond its boundaries. \.- In many areas, whether through abdi cati on, ennui, or simply a ml s- understanding of his responsibilities by the Teaching Master, concerned) the grievor \'Ias not under direction of a Teaching Master. . Important parts of her lecture material were prepared by her and not vetted by anyone. The grievor) in fact) was allowed to act as a Teaching Master. There appears to be a need for Teachi ng Masters to be coached' in how to carry out their responsibilities with respect to Instructors) and to have more senior members of the departments monitor the system to ensure that it is working properly~ Because of the risks that seem inherent in this classification system) performance appraisal progra~ should provide for the early identification of .inadequate performance and for quick corrective action. ,~~