HEADNOTE i

CAAT A

OPSEU 87B41

OPSEU LOCAL 110

Articles101

UNION OPSEU vs Fanshawe CollegeAward dated December 4 1987 DH Kates

Union grieves that work performed by a support staffbargaining unit member work previously done by a

teaching maste is teacherswork and thereby the

support staff member should be treated as a member of theacademic bargaining unit

Board rules that the support staff member is not engagedin a teaching capacity and does not belong to theacademic bargaining unit

Grievance dismissed

Dissent by Union Nominee

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN

Fanshawe College

hereinafter referred to as the College

and

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union

hereinatez referred to as thetede union

And In the Matter of a Grievance Relating to EmployeeUnder the Academic Collective Agreement OPSEU 87B41

Before DH Kates Chairman

Gerry Ceplan Union Nominee

Allen S Merritt CollegeNominee

Appearin9 for the Employer GG Riggs Counsel

Appearing for the Trade Union Malcolm Ruby Counsel

Heard at London Ontario on October 30 1987

Decision

In this grievance the trade union submits that the College

has violated several provisions of the academic collective

agreement when it assigns teachers work to an employee member

of the support staff bargaining unit It accordingly requests a

direction of this Board that the employee in question be

declared to hold the statu of a teacher and that the

appropriate provimions of the academic collective agreement be

made applibl

The facts may be summarimed as follows Since 1978 the

College has offered under its Mechanical Technology Division a

course leading to diplomas as a Stationary Engineer Initially

the courses purpose was to prepare students for Provincial

licencing aL a Stationary Engineer 4th Class Since 1985 the

course work hal been upgraded to permit eventual licencing at

the Stationary Engineer 3rd Class level To all intents and

purpome the duration of the course work towardm a College

diploma evidencing eligibility for Stationary Engineer 3rd Class

status is sixtyfour 64 weeks Of that time thirtysix weeks

are devoted to classroom theory activity and twentyeight

weeks are devoted to plant in training activity It is common

ground that the purpose of the in plant assignments are to

enable the student to apply the theory learned in the classroom

in the practical environment of plant or institutional setting

The ob3ective of the course is succinctly set out in the

Collegemcalendar

2

Stationary Engineering 3rd end 4th GlassPractical and Theory

To prepare students to write the modular exams set by theSkills Development apprenticeship office To give practicaltraining which together with successulcompletion o themodular exams and the required precertiication qualifyingeperience will result in a successulapplication beingmade to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relationsor a 4th Class Stationary Engineer Certificate To givepractical training which together with successful completiono the modular exams and four months precertificationqualifying experience leading to qualification at theClass level

It is also common ground that as the student progresses

through the various learning modules comprising the theoretical

or classroom portion of the course he is assigned for intervals

o approximately four weeks duration to a variety o plants

hospitals schoolm etc where in plant training takee place

These in plant training periods are specifically identified in

the course calendar as a requirement of the course While on

in plant training the student is under the control and

direction o the Chief Engineer or a Stationary Engineer

Clara For the duration of the course the student visits

variety of facilities on a rotational basis in order to become

familiar with the different aspects of the stationary engineers

duties and responsibilities while assigned to in plant

training The student remains a student of the College and is

not an employee of the facility

The course ia sponsored by the London Industrial Training

Advisory Board LITAB LITAB is comprised of a group of

3ourneymen tradesmen who provide advice and recommendations to

the College with respect to the betterment of the course

Ostensibly the course is funded by LITAB but in act the Federal

Department of Manpower provides the monies through LITAB for

each student enrolled in the programme The College receives e

per diem amount for each student And each student is given an

allowance to assist in his or her support during the sixtyour

week period of the course

Since the programmes inception in 1978 Mr Darryl Gerster

has been employed in a teaching capacity For part of each

theoretical sub3ect matter that comprised a part of the academic

curriculum The other portion involved Mr Gerster servicing

the in plant training aspect of the course These services

included the task of canvassing the required plant or

institutional facilities within the Colleges territorial

urisdiction in order to secure theircooperation in accepting

students as trainees Once sufficient facilities for student

placement have been secured Mr Gerster then assigns the

student to the appropriate facility in accordance with the

lattersstage in the programme While students ere placed on

the in plant training aspect of the programme Mr Grster visits

the plant or facility to determine whether both the students and

the employers representativesie the Chief Stationary

Engineer are encountering any difficulty In short once the

students have been placed Mr Gersters responsibility was to

monitor and supervise the in training aspect o the course by

visiting each facility at least once a week in order to problem

olve

Mr Gerster also indicated that there exists a student

evaluation component to the plant training aspect of the

course During his weekly visits he would often question the

student about his understanding and appreciation of the course

work imparted in the classroom in light of his or her experience

in the actual work environment Moreover the student might be

interviewed with respect to several aspects of the facilitys

operations to ensure that the student was profiting rom the

aignment Moreover after the tudent return from the

assignment Mr Gerster would evaluate or grade his or her

progress as part of the course result

From another perspective Mr Gerster conceded during his

crossexamination that the student while on in plant training

was under the direct control o the Chief Stationary Engineer

And indeed in a practical sense given the short duration of

his visits the plant engineers assumed much of the

responsibility of showing the students the ropes and reporting

his or her progress to Mr Gerster In other words there is no

doubt that Mr Gerster while monitoring the courses plant

training placement programme assisted the resident stationary

engineer oversee the students progress

At all times while Mr Gerster discharged both the

theoretical and practical components of the Stationary

Engineers Programme he was paid as a teaching master pursuant

to the pay scale prescribed by the Academic Collective

agreement

It is also common ground that the College offers courses in

CoOperative Training in a variety o 3ourneyman trades

technicians and technologists programmes leading towards

appropriate certiication and licencing It is clear that the

Stationary Engineering Programme is not part o the Colleges

Cooperative Training Programme Pivotal to both programmes

the principle o combining as a part o the learning process

both theoretical classroom study with the practical experience

of on the 3ob exposure in meeting curriculum requirements The

one significant difference is that the student while enrolled in

a cooperative programme is paid as an employee of the

while on the in training portion of the course work

And to that end the employer who is responsible or the

student is charged with ensuring that the Collegeeprogramme

requirements are met That is to say the employer evaluates

the students progress while on the 3ob with a view to assessing

whether he or she ia proiting from the programme To thi end

the employer is given an evaluation sheet by the College to

grade the students under variou categories Or the employer

may very well use its own marking 6ormat to evaluate the

student per6ormance

The duties and responsibilities of marketing the Colleges

Cooperative Training Programme and monitoring end supervising

the in plant training aspects o6 the programme after the

studentm are placed are discharged by the Cooperative Liaison

06icer The Cooperative Liaison Of6icer is an employee o the

College and is a member o6 the upport sta66 bargaining unit

represented by OPSEU It is common ground that while performing

these duties the Cooperative Liaison Officer is not engaged in

any teaching capacity see Re OPSEU and Fanshawe Colleqe OLRB

166883M decision dated September 19 1984 MOre

specifically the Cooperative Liaison Officer does not engage

in any evaluation of a student during in training placement

In supervising and monitoring the practical training

component of the Cooperative Programme the Cooperative

Oicer discharges apart from mtudent evaluation lmllar

functions as were described by Mr Gerster with respect to the

Stationary Engineer Programme Mr M Hladynick Cooperative

Liaison Officer stated that he would visit the students

periodically once placed in a facility to iron out any

difficulties He would speak to the supervising employer

representative to ensure that the student is achieving the

programmes ob3ective in terms of the type of work that is being

assigned He is also responsible for ensuring that the student

evaluation form is completed at the end of the placement

During the 198586academic year the College removed from

Mr Gerster responsibilities the monitoring and supervisory

functions o overseeing the in training portion of the

Stationary Engineering programme Those functions were

transferred to Mr Hladynick who absorbed these responsibilities

as part of his duties in administering the several Cooperative

Training Programmes that had hitherto beenaigned him Mr

Hladynick stated that he secured the permission of LITAB to

administer the in training portion of the Stationary Engineering

Programme in the same manner as he would his Cooperative

Training assignments And to repeat no teaching functions

ware perormed during the student stationary engineer

placements More particularly the student evaluation

responsibility hitherto alleged to have been performed by Mr

Gerster was clearly discharged by the Chief Stationary Engineer

at the facility where the student had been placed

The trade unions complaint as expressed in its grievance

is that Mr Hladynick while montoing and upeviaing he in

training component of the Stationary Engineers Training

programme was performing teacherswork and thereby should be

treated as a member of the Academic Bargaining Unit

Accordingly the principal issue before this Board is whether

the evidence demonstrated that Mr Hladynick having regard to

the duties he performs is engaged as a teacher And

course that evidence demonstrated that he is not

Indeed the sole teaching duty hitherto discharged by Mr

Gerster while he was charged with the responsibility for the in

training aspect of the Stationery Engineers programme

pertained to student evaluation while on in plant training

That responsibility at least to the extent it may be said to

have been formerly discharged by Mr Gerster was clearly

transferred to the representatives of the facility at which the

student is placed And indeed aa Mr Hladymick indicated this

transfer of responsibility was effected by the College upon the

advice and recommendation of LITAB Accordingly this Board

no alternative but to subscribe to the findings of the OLRB

declaring the Cooperative Liaison Officer having regard to the

duties and responsibilities performed continues to be properly

viewed as mn employee member of the Support Staff Bargaining

Unit

The trade union appeared to emphasize in its submissions the

diferences between the CollegesCooperative Training

Programme and the Stationary Engineers Training Programme to

suggest that the functions presently discharged by Mr Mladynick

with respect to the latter programme Uice to constitute

teaching unctions for purposes of achieving employee tatus in

the Academic Bargaining unit More particularly he emphasized

that the student while placed on in training is a student of the

College whereas the coop student while in training is an

employee of the placement agency Moreover the trade union

also stressed that the Stationary Engineers Programme emphasized

in training placement as an actual course of instruction in

the College calendar whereas the Cooperative Training

Programmes hsd no such course designationin the Colleges

calendar

Thesedierences of course or purposes of the issue

raied in dispute are differences without meaning or

substance In the one instance the student while on

Cooperative Training is paid a salary whereas in the other the

student while in training on the Stationary Engineer Programme

receive an allowance from the Department of Manpower We fail

to appreciate how that distinction relative to Mr Hladyntcks

responsibilities is at all germane to the charge that he

perorms teaching unctions

And in the second instance we do not hold it relevant to the

isue in dispute whether or not the in training component of the

9rogramme is encapsulated ss a course subject in the Colleges

calendar Common to both programmes i the requirement imposed

on the atudent that the in trainngcomponent be

order to achieve a College Diploma And that requirement

clearly spelled out in the relevant portion o the College

clender

In summary it suice to say that Hr Hladynick while

monitoring and supervising both programmes is not engaged in

teaching capacity As such he doe not belong to the Academic

Bargaining Unit as alleged by the trade union in it grievance

Accordingly the grievance is denied

Dated this ay of December 1987

David H Kates

I concur Allen Merritt

College Nominee

I dissent Gerry CaDlan See disaent

Trade Union Nominee

RECEIVEDI0V 3 0 1987

Dr E NI bE OFmU AND FAbl3HAWEi PLLEr4E 87B4t

Gerald Cap lan

Nov 22 1987

Tle piJtztI i2ue i rt mV vjew ttol Lo quote khe Chair

12echa The e che t wlteltec hhe College siplicit

fIdledIeacie wi I be esotibe or bokh kheoekical and

t seems cIe I a r such a commifmemt has been prk of Lhe

Col99s opeits Llnti Lhe very momenk Jersker was replacedby HIalyai ck TliaIitkelprelLJor is based on khe roi lowingfirst tlte very wcd of the Calenclar ciLed by khe Chair in his

decisiov seconlly the fact that klle Stat ionary EngineersProgralliclIes ay acLua course of irlsilcJ on designaked as

inEraining placement whereas he CooperaLive Training Programsdesignses no such course thtrdiy Lhat while coop sudenswere

employees of the r JrisLittons as trainees stationaryengineeringj strtlents emained pat of he College and fourthlyand finally thai in fact a feahing master Darryl Gerster hadbeen esponsible of the program for some seven years from 1978to 1985

The cur0uahveeIfec of all these poinks was o convey the

JmlessJotal 11rtSeitv3lved a keachJ ng masker in all ils

cotpornl Jncdd Is pvclJc aseck s GeFskep may Qof have

iPcOltilJJ7 Cltt3IttCI SLIiaIViS ilICI 2nd evaluating eachtJel lktit1c4cTltov lLlt ies properly required

vtal mlela iIaLTeidlefi3nrtsLtden work

iL h made ItiIIhe tlmetl 1 tended fhei r inLraining

Iltete is o qlpui9 taL the cluhies carried ou byaciynick hard y fetLIj le tte ski Is off a teaching master BuL the

College isrenegnllon the obligaf ion ils own calendar impliesto ils students as wel l as the precedents of numerous years byperenptority and wJhouLroLice or change of calendar eliminatingdirec College sLpervisioll and evaluation of staionaryeng ineer ing s LLclertt s

As a eulIe Lrnion i elziLlec to believe that the joberlzai Ieaze IatshorJct rolL be assigned o member of