IN THE MATTER OF A WORKLOAD ARBITRATION

BETWEEN:

MOHAWK COLLEGE

The Employer

- and -

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 240

- The Union

AND IN THE MATTER of the workload complaint of Cynthia Hammond

Workload Resolution Arbitrator: Howard Snow

Appearances: On behalf of the Employer:

Fred Deys Paul Armstrong Linda Grgurich

On behalf of the Union: Sam Maga Cynthia Hammond

Director, Academic Staff Relations • Dean, Heath Sciences

Director Human Resources and Labour Relations Consulting Services

- President, Local 240 - Complainant

Hearing held September 27 and October 7, 2011, in Hamilton, Ontario.

AWARD

INTRODUCTION

There are two issues involved in this complaint. First, did a course undergo "a major

revision" such that the teacher should have the same number of hours allowed for preparation

time as would be allowed for a new course? Secondly, are there "atypical circumstances"

in this course so that there should be two additional hours each week for evaluation and

feedback?

BACKGROUND

The collective agreement between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the

various colleges in Ontario, including this Employer, Mohawk College, regulates the work

of teachers. Cynthia Hammond is a teacher in the Nursing program at Mohawk College.

The collective agreement contains detailed provisions for assigning teaching duties and for

calculating the hours of work involved in performing those duties.

In the spring of 2011 a supervisor prepared a Standard Workload Form with proposed duties

for Ms Hammond. Ms Hammond raised several concerns about those duties; her two

remaining concerns were considered in this arbitration.

The collective agreement calls for an informal arbitration hearing. The parties made

submissions and, in so doing, outlined many of the key facts of this dispute. I also heard

evidence from Ms Hammond (the Complainant) and from Paul Armstrong (the Dean). There

was little disagreement as to the facts.

- 2 -

In the 2011 fall term Cynthia Hammond is teaching "Guided Nursing Practice III" with a

course number N3X04. Ms Hammond and eight (8) third year nursing students spend most

of the 12 class hours per week in a hospital where the students provide nursing care to

patients and Ms Hammond supervises the students, providing guidance and feedback to

them. Nursing N3X04 runs for 14 weeks with 168 teaching contact hours. There are several

sections of the course, each taught by a different teacher.

Ms Hammond taught this course N3X04 in each of the last three years, As such, the course

would normally attract a preparation factor of "Established B" under the formula in Article

11.01 I) of the collective agreement, set out below. However, Ms Hammond and the Union

said that the course had undergone "a major revision" since 2010 and, as such, should be

treated as a "new" course under the formula so that Ms Hammond would receive credit for

an additional six (6) hours of preparation time each week.

I turn to the evidence about the revisions to the course.

The Mohawk College Nursing program is a program offered by a consortium of McMaster

University, Mohawk College and Conestoga College. The three institutions offer a common

program leading to the McMaster Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BScN) degree. After the

same curriculum was implemented at the three institutions, a process of curriculum renewal

began. This review led to the adoption of what is called the "Kaleidoscope" curriculum.

In a document Ms Hammond submitted at the hearing, the key differences in the new

curriculum are summarised as follows:

The Kaleidoscope Curriculum represents a shift or a turn in perspectives from the traditional BScN curriculum Problem based learning has been updated to a person based learning within a problem - based approach. This revised approach integrates ways of knowing in nursing, a concept based approach, and narrative pedagogy to ensure that the person is held at the centre of learning. A student-centred approach is retained and key concepts are explicitly reinforced across and within

-3-

courses so that integrated learning is reinforced. Clinical reasoning is more explicitly emphasized as a basis of professional practice. While some courses have been re-sequenced and concepts shifted from one course to another, the key concepts that have been taught within the 13ScN program remain the same. We believe that the Kaleidoscope Curriculum addresses the recent calls for nursing education reform by building upon and slightly modifying our traditional approach to nursing education.

Apart from the general change to a "person based learning" approach outlined above, there

have been a number of changes in course N3X04 which reflect the new curriculum.

Two courses previously taught in third year - "Critical Appraisal of the Research Literature"

and "Pathophysiology" - have been eliminated and the course content previously covered in

those courses has been moved to other courses, including this course N3X04.

A new mandatory simulation consisting of six hours was added to Ms Hammond's course

N3X04. A new on-line Evidence Informed Decision Making (EIDM) module of about seven

hours was added to N3X04. New EIDM principles and worksheets are required of the

students taking about six hours of Ms FIarnmond' s time, including both her preparation and

class time. A new section on the mandatory hospital electronic documentation system was

added consisting of four hours of class time. A new EIDM text book was introduced and is

to be used in discussion sessions with students.

Of particular relevance here, the teaching of this new material requires new preparation by

Ms Hammond. She indicated that it was difficult to estimate how much work some of the

changes would entail until she had actually done that work. However, Ms Hammond

estimated that it took between four and eight hours to prepare for the new simulation. It took

six hours to prepare for the new electronic documentation systems section. Finally, some of

the 6 hours spent on the EIDM principles and worksheets were hours spent in preparation.

In total she outlined some 27 hours of work as a result of the changes, but it was not clear

- 4 -

how much was preparation time. Eight hours of preparation time was clearly identified and

other preparation was noted but no clear time estimate was given for the other preparation.

From Ms Hammond's evidence I estimate her total preparation time for the new material as

between 16 and 20 hours for the course.

Ms Hammond said that the current 7.2 hours per week of attributed preparation time was not

adequate given the extent of the changes. 1 note that over the 14 weeks of the course she had

been allowed a total of 100.8 hours of preparation time.

Turning to the evaluation issue, Ms Hammond said there were new worksheets which

students submit four times per term for her to evaluate. Ms Hammond said the new

worksheets took longer to evaluate than had the old ones. She indicated that a colleague who

had used similar tools when the corresponding changes were introduced last year in year two

of the Nursing program found that about 30 minutes was needed to evaluate and provide

feedback on each worksheet.

There is also a new form for the mid-term and final evaluations. Ms Hammond said that the

same colleague had reported to her that it had required about 1.5 hours per student to

complete each evaluation.

The Union said that in similar courses in the other years of the nursing program there have

been additional hours allowed for evaluation and feedback due to atypical circumstances.

Paul Armstrong, Dean of Health Sciences, testified that the Employer did not believe there

was a major revision to this course. He said that the Employer gives a course a new name and

number when there is a major revision, which he said is a revision to 30% or more of a

course. Here the course name and number are the same and so a student who previously took

- 5 -

this course received credit for the same course as a student taking it this year. A teacher in

this course does not teach new material - the teacher works with the students in the hospital

setting in applying the knowledge gained in other courses. He expressed the opinion that the

"Established B" preparation factor was more than adequate in providing 7.2 hours per week,

or 100.8 hours per term, to prepare for the hours spent teaching students.

As for evaluations, Dean Armstrong said that the "Essay or project" evaluation factor

allowed for this course was the highest available under the collective agreement (see Article

11.01 E 1, below). But this was not a situation of reading and evaluating essays which might

take a very long time. Much of the evaluation was done during the class hours with the

students in the hospital setting. The goal of the changes in evaluation was to bring greater

structure and consistency to the process. The evaluations are now less "free-form," or

narrative, in nature and are to address certain key factors.

Dean Armstrong also provided a table containing an estimate provided by the Associate

Dean, a nurse, of the amount of time a teacher would require for evaluation outside class.

That estimate gave a total of 22 hours each semester. Dean Armstrong noted that the current

Standard Workload Form allowed 0,3 hours per student per week, times eight students, times

14 weeks, for a total of 40.32 hours, which was well in excess of the 22 hours the Associate

Dean estimated the evaluation process would take. Even assuming that some of the

evaluation takes twice as long as the Associate Dean thought it would or should, there was

ample time for evaluation and feedback using the current formula.

PROVISIONS OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

The following are the key provisions of the parties' 2009-2012 collective agreement:

6

Article 11 WORKLOAD

11.01 D 1

Weekly hours for preparation shall be attributed to the teacher in accordance with the following formula;

TYPE OF COURSE RATIO OF ASSIGNED TEACHING CONTACT HOURS TO ATTRIBUTED HOURS FOR PREPARATION

New 1 : 1.10 Established A 1 : 0.85 Established B l : 0.60 Repeat A 1 ; 0,45 Repeat B 1 : 0.35 Special A as indicated below Special B as indicated below

• • •

11.01 D 3 For purposes of the formula:

(I)

"New" refers to the first section of a course which the teacher is

- teaching for the first time, (This definition does not apply to a new full-time teacher who has previously taught the course as a Partial-Load, Sessional or Part- time employee, nor to courses designated as "Special" as defined below); or

- teaching for the first time since a major revision of the course or curriculum has been approved by the College.

(ii) "Established A" refers to the first section of a course which the teacher has previously taught but not within the previous three academic years.

(iii) "Established B" refers to the first section of a course which the teacher has taught within the previous three academic years.

11.01 E 1 Weekly hours for evaluation and feedback in a course shall be attributed to a teacher in accordance with the following formula:

RATIO OF ASSIGNED TEACHING CONTACT HOURS TO ATTRIBUTED HOURS FOR EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK

Essay or project Routine or Assisted

In-Process

7

1:0.030 1:0.015 1:0,0092 per student per student per student

V • •

11.01 G 2 Where there are atypical circumstances affecting the workload of a teacher or group of teachers which are not adequately reflected in this Article 11, Workload, additional hours shall be attributed, following discussion between each teacher individually and the supervisor, on an hour for hour basis.

UNION POSITION

The Union reviewed the evidence and said that the course merited a new preparation factor.

The course is being delivered under a new model, with a new textbook, and the normal

preparation factor simply did not account for this. There are additional sections of the course

to prepare, with different language and approach to incorporate into the teaching.

As for the evaluation factor, the Union noted the many changes in evaluation. In previous

years the course had the same factor for evaluation as it does this year but this year the

evaluation is new and is much more time consuming. Similar courses in other years in the

nursing program have additional hours attributed for atypical circumstances and this third

year course should likewise have additional hours allowed.

In summary, the Union sought two changes in Ms Hammond's workload:

I Treat the course Nursing N3X04 as a new preparation; and,

2. Allow for two additional hours for evaluation in that course using the atypical

circumstances provision in Article 11.01 G 2.

8

EMPLOYER POSITION

The Employer said that, given the weekly teaching contact hours (12), the hours attributed

for preparation (7.2), and the hours attributed for evaluation and feedback (2.8), Ms

Hammond was allowed 22 hours per week for teaching the course, or 308 total hours for the

course. Much of the course was unchanged. It still consisted of class hours spent in a

hospital with eight students, supervising their work with patients. While the style of

interaction between Ms Hammond and the students during those hours of class time was

different, there was no suggestion that the new focus required large amounts of weekly

preparation time. As for the new content, it appeared that it took about 27 hours during the

14 weeks , or less than 2 hours per week on average, to deal with the new content. But some

of those 27 hours were teaching contact hours, not preparation time.

The Employer submitted that a two part test should be used in assessing whether there has

been a major revision to the course - were there changes in the course objectives and was

there a significant increase in the amount of preparation as a result? This course did not

warrant a new preparation factor.

As for the request for an increase in the time allowed for evaluation and feedback, the

Employer submitted that while the form used for evaluation was new, there was no

persuasive evidence that the evaluation required more time than allowed.

CONCLUSIONS

Was there a "major revision" to Ms Hammond's course Nursing N3X04?

The meaning of a disputed term in a collective agreement can often be clarified by examining

- 9 -

the context in which that term appears. In deciding whether there was a major revision it is

helpful to review the collective agreement to examine what the parties intended when they

used that term.

The collective agreement provides 1.1 hours of preparation time for each teaching contact

hour in a new course. If a teacher had taught the course before, but not in the last three years,

the course has slightly fewer hours for preparation - 0.85 hours for each teaching contact

hour. Finally, if the teacher has taught the course in the last three years, as Ms Hammond has

done, the course normally has even fewer hours for preparation 0.6 hours for each teaching

contact hour (see Article 11.01 D 1, above).

This collective agreement further provides that any course which has undergone a major

revision since a teacher last taught the course is also treated as a new course. Those courses

with a major revision also have a preparation time allowance of 1.1 hour for each teaching

contact hour (see Article 11.01 D (3) (i), above).

If a course is changed very significantly, it is clear that at some point the course could and

would be given a new name and number. Dean Armstrong suggested that if more than 30%

of the course was new it would be given a new name and number. Although I do not suggest

that 30% is uniformly used as the appropriate benchmark, I accept that, in general terms, if

two students have received credit in different terms for the same course there is an

expectation that they will have learned similar things. On the other hand, if their courses are

quite different, the students should receive credit for different courses and so those two

different courses should have different names and numbers.

Most years a course will undergo no change or only fairly minor revisions. Periodic minor

revisions to courses are to be expected in an academic institution and this would not lead to

- 10 -

an increase in the hours allowed for preparation.

There is, however, a category of change which is greater than minor but not so great as to

warrant a new course name and number. The parties to this collective agreement agreed that

a course may undergo such a major revision that the course should be treated as a new

preparation but those same revisions would not be enough to warrant giving the course a new

name and number (see Article 11.01 D 3 (1), above).

Because a course with a major revision receives the same amount of preparation time as does

a new course, it suggests that preparing to teach a course that has undergone a major revision

will take a similar number of hours as preparing to teach a totally new course, It also

suggests that it will take more time to prepare the revised course than it would to prepare a

course which the teacher had not taught for more than three years. It follows that there must

be quite significant changes to the course.

With that review of the parties' intended meaning of major revision, is N3X04 a course with

a major revision?

I acknowledge that there have been significantly more changes in this course this year than

there have been in any other year that Ms Hammond has taught the course.

There is a new focus in the student/teacher interaction this year. Ms Hammond indicated that

her interaction with students is quite different than in previous years and that she had to be

alert in order to think in that new way. But there was no evidence that this change required

additional weekly preparation time.

There was also considerable new content in the course - new simulation, new EIDM module,

- 11 -

new EIDM principles and worksheets, new electronic documentation section, and a new

textbook. As noted, Ms Hammond said that she calculated the new content required about

27 hours of work in total. But some of those 27 hours were teaching contact hours, not

preparation hours. As I noted above in outlining the evidence, it appeared that there were

about 16 to 20 hours of new preparation time. On the other hand, there was no evidence of

what, if any, course content was removed from the course nor how much, if any, preparation

time done previously need not be done in the course this fall. I can only assume that some

preparation done previously is no longer needed so that while there were 16 to 20 hours of

preparation for the new material, the actual increase in preparation time would be less than

that number of hours.

Although I agree with the Union that there has been a significant change, I cannot conclude

that the extent of the course changes, nor the amount of time needed to prepare for these

changes, is at the level which would warrant equating the amount of preparation for this

course with the amount of preparation which would need to be done if Ms Hammond had

never previously taught this course. I find that this was not a "major revision" to the course

N3X04 as that term was intended by the parties to this collective agreement. It follows that

I conclude the course does not merit a "new" preparation factor.

As an aside, I note that in this case there are only two options available to me as a workload

resolution arbitrator regarding the preparation time allowance - either "Established B" or

new. It is simply not possible to order the "Established A" preparation factor, a factor which

would provide an allowance half way between those other two,

Were there "atypical" circumstances warranting an additional time allowance for evaluation

and feedback?

- 12_

Ms Hammond and the Union said that the time needed for evaluation and feedback was not

adequately reflected in the hours permitted under the collective agreement. Because of the

atypical circumstances, the Union asked that two additional hours be attributed for evaluation

and feedback (see Article 11.01 G 2, above).

The changes in evaluation consisted primarily of the new worksheets which students

complete four times per term and which Ms Hammond then evaluates, and the new form of

mid-term and final evaluations. Both forms of evaluation have changed considerably, What

was not as clear is whether it takes significantly longer to complete these than did the ones

in use in previous years, those with which Ms Hammond had become familiar.

Both the new worksheets and the evaluation forms are more standardized. It is possible that

it will always take Ms Hammond longer to evaluate students using the new form of

worksheet than it did with the old ones, and also that it will always take longer to prepare the

new mid-term and final evaluations of the students. I was, however, provided with a

completed old form of final evaluation and with a completed new form of final evaluation,

which were both done by another teacher in another course. A comparison of those

documents does not suggest to me that there is any more actual evaluation provided by the

teacher using the new format than there was in the old format. I am unable to conclude that

it will take longer to complete the new form than the old form.

The Union also said that, relying upon the atypical circumstances provision, additional hours

have been added to similar courses in the other years of the Nursing program. I accept that

fairness suggests that similar courses should be treated in a similar way, However, I do not

have sufficient evidence to allow me to use what occurred in those other courses as a basis

for allowing additional hours here. There was no evidence of what the atypical

circumstances were which led to those hours being added to those other courses. Nor was

- 13 -

there clear evidence as to how similar the circumstances of this course might be to the

circumstances of those courses.

I am unable to find that the use of new forms of evaluation amount to atypical circumstances

which warrant the attribution of additional hours for the purpose of evaluation and feedback.

In the result, both aspects of Ms Hammond's complaint are dismissed,

Dated in London, Ontario, this 19' day of October, 2011.

Howard Snow, Workload Resolution Arbitrator