Professor frustrated by associate dean's criticism and disagreement with certain things, but his harassment complaints were dismissed
Criticism and disagreement from management may not always be pleasant for employees to experience, but it doesn’t necessarily qualify as harassment and bullying. So said an Ontario arbitrator in dismissing a college professor’s grievances against his college and associate dean.
The professor was hired to a partial-load position in 2012 and then a full-time position in 2013 at the Sheridan College School of Business in Oakville, Ont. He was considered an above-average teacher – performance reviews by students were regularly around 90 per cent – but had some disagreements with his associate dean. The associate dean – who was chair of the committee that hired the professor – claimed to be supportive of the professor, but felt he didn’t easily accept doing things differently than the way he preferred and could be difficult to manage – something the hiring committee had been concerned about before hiring him. As a result, over time the professor became more combative and less apt to collaborate.
In April 2013, two students appealed the exam marks given to them by the professor for different reasons. The professor was strongly against the appeals but the associate dean granted both of them. According to the professor, the associate dean told him during discussion of one of the appeals that “this could be your last rodeo, cowboy,” which the associate dean denied as not something he would say – though he acknowledged the discussions were difficult. The professor took the view that the appeal process was broken and his input wasn’t valued. These feelings continued when the professor gave a student a zero on an exam after being caught with a cellphone, which was considered cheating. The student appealed and the appeal was allowed.
In 2014, the professor was going through some personal problems related to family health and marriage issues and asked for time off from a doctor of business administration (DBA) program he had been taking since before he was hired at Sheridan. The associate dean tried to convince the professor not to take time off, but the professor claimed he said he was only hired because of his enrolment in the program and if he didn’t complete it he might not fit in Sheridan’s long-term plans -- he was still on probation. The associate dean eventually offered to assign him courses at only one campus instead of the two he was currently teaching at, and the professor accepted. However, he was upset after the meeting and felt the associate dean refused to appreciate his personal situation, leaving the professor feeling harassed and bullied.
In June 2014, both the professor and the associate dean were at a meeting with 20 to 30 people to discuss a grade sync program. The professor had several questions about the program, and at one point the associate dean had heard enough and, according to the professor, told him to “get it through your thick skull.” The associate dean denied saying it and the professor supplied no witnesses to back him up.
The professor applied for reimbursement of his DBA program tuition in 2015 and the associate dean supported the application initially. However, after accepting the application, the committee discovered the DBA program wasn’t in accounting and therefore didn’t meet the necessary criteria for reimbursement. The professor cited this as an example of harassment, but the associate dean claimed he had nothing to do with the decision.
The professor complained of other instances where the associate dean and the college didn’t support him. In 2015, when the associate dean asked to have another faculty member who was pursuing an MBA sit in on his class, the professor refused, feeling it showed a lack of confidence in teaching ability. The professor also wanted the college to force a publisher to follow through with providing lecture videos for his course, but the associate dean refused because he didn’t want to create conflict with a publisher with which the college had an ongoing relationship.
On another occasion, the professor was assigned as a course lead but wasn’t assigned to teach the course as the teaching assignments for the course had already been determined. The associate dean thought the professor wanted the course lead assignment, but removed it when the professor filed a formal complaint. The professor then felt the removal of the assignment was a retaliation for the complaint.
The professor’s displeasure reached the point where he wouldn’t meet with the associate dean unless two union stewards were with him. The associate dean refused this arrangement, so the professor requested that all communication between them be by email only. The associate dean refused again, saying it was necessary to meet to discuss workplace matters. According to the associate dean, he tried to compliment the professor on a presentation at a meeting in May 2016, but the professor didn’t respond. Soon after, the associate dean sent the professor an email about a course outline, but the professor was on vacation. The associate dean said he didn’t know the professor was on vacation but simply wanted to know the status of the outline since it was supposed to have been completed before the professor went on vacation.
The professor filed four grievances related to these incidents claiming improper treatment, harassment, and bullying contrary to the collective agreement.
The arbitrator found that most of the incidents the professor described were situations where the associate dean “expressed reasonable criticism” or “legitimate disagreement” with the professor. Whether the criticism and disagreement was right, it didn’t matter – it was the associate dean’s managerial right to do so.
“The collective agreement does not entitle the employee to a manager who always agrees with him, even if the employee is convinced that his position is the more valid one,” said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator also found the occasion when the professor’s course lead was removed wasn’t retaliation for his complaint, but rather because the professor expressed his opinion that he shouldn’t do it without teaching the course. Since the associate dean couldn’t assign him to teach the course, it was reasonable to remove the professor from the assignment, said the arbitrator.
In addition, the arbitrator found no evidence of harassment in asking about an overdue assignment and the professor wasn’t asked to do work on his vacation. The arbitrator also accepted that the associate dean had nothing to do with the denial of tuition reimbursement.
As for the comment “get it through your thick skull,” the arbitrator agreed that it would be “derisory, berating and belittling,” as well as “unwarranted” – specifically prohibited by the collective agreement’s harassment clause. However, despite the fact there were more than 20 people at the meeting where the professor alleged the comment was made, he didn’t present any witnesses to corroborate his story. As a result, the arbitrator had no evidence the comment was made. There was also no evidence that the associate dean made the “rodeo” comment, and such a comment made in frustration may not violate the collective agreement if it’s not “reflective of the general tone of communication between” them, said the arbitrator.
Finding no evidence of harassment or bullying, the arbitrator dismissed the professor’s grievances. See OPSEU and Sheridan College (Aggarwal), Re, 2018 CarswellOnt 3702 (Ont. Arb.).
