Cmty. Coll. of R.I. Faculty Ass'n v. Cmty. Coll.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. PM-2020-04882 |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
| Parties | COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF RHODE ISLAND FACULTY ASSOCIATION/NEARI/NEA, Petitioner, v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF RHODE ISLAND, Respondent. |
DECISION
Community College of Rhode Island Faculty Association/NEARI/NEA (the Union) brings this Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award entered against it in favor of Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI). CCRI objects to the Union's motion and has filed its own Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award and for an Award of Attorney's Fees. This Court exercises jurisdiction over this controversy pursuant to G.L. 1956 §§ 28-9-17 and 28-9-18. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court denies the Union's Motion to Vacate and grants CCRI's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. The Court also conditionally grants CCRI's request for attorney's fees.
This controversy involves an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement which governs the relationship between the Union and CCRI. See Ex. 2 to Pet'r's Mem. Law Supp. of Mot. Vacate (CBA). Pertinent to this case, the CBA establishes a "Curriculum Review Committee" (CRC) composed of 13 voting faculty members and chaired by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. See CBA, Art. II, §§ (G)(1)-(2)2; Ex. 1 to Pet'r's Mem. (Arbitration Decision and Award) at 1. The purpose of the CRC is to "consider all courses of study and programs, regardless of origin, including all experimental courses which have run for a maximum of two semesters, and to approve or reject individual courses to be offered for degree credit in existing or proposed programs." (CBA, Art. II, § (G)(4).) Article II, Section (G)(4) further provides:
Modifications to existing courses, including changes in catalog descriptions, shall be subject to the approval of the Curriculum Review Committee. All courses affirmed by the Curriculum Review Committee are subject to approval by the President of the College. Any recommendation rejected by the President shall be returned to the Curriculum Review Committee with the President's reasons for rejection. The Curriculum Review Committee will in turn forward the rejection and the reasons to the appropriate academic unit. Id. (emphasis added).
Of note, beyond this contractual language, "there are no committee rules or regulations, handbooks or other documents that set forth the parameters of the jurisdiction of the CRC or specifically lists it[s] duties and responsibilities . . . ." (Arbitration Decision and Award at 2.)
In 2017, CCRI academic leadership proposed an additional three-week winter session, known as a "J-Term," with the hope that adding this term would positively impact student success and improve disappointing graduation and retention rates. Id. at 6. CCRI also sought to keep pace with equivalent colleges that offered condensed terms over the traditional winter break.3 Id.
Dr. Rosemary Costigan, CCRI's Vice President for Academic Affairs, requested that department chairs and deans identify which courses would be adaptable to a three-week session. Id. The same process previously had been utilized when selecting summer session courses to be completed in less than the regular 15-week semester. Id. at 7.4 The Union objected to CCRI's plan to offer three-week sessions without first submitting the modified courses to the CRC for review and approval in accordance with Article II, Section G of the CBA. Id. at 9.
CCRI ultimately chose to offer 19 courses for inclusion in a three-week J-Term claiming that the condensed programs would follow the 15-week semester sessions as to content, credit hours, and student learning outcomes. Id. at 6, 7. Of the 19 courses, fourteen were distance-learning classes that previously had been offered as such during the fifteen-week Spring and Fall terms. Id. at 6. CCRI did not submit any of those courses of study to CRC to "consider" and "approve or reject" them for inclusion in an intensive three-week format. Id. at 6, 8; see CBA, Art. II, § (G)(4). In response, the Union filed a grievance under Article IX of the CBA, which sets forth thegrievance procedure for challenging the "interpretation, application, or violation of any of the provisions of [the] Agreement." CBA, Art. IX, § (A)(1); Arbitration Decision and Award at 1. On November 19, 2018, when the grievance was not satisfactorily resolved, the Union filed a demand for arbitration. See CBA, Art. IX, § (A)(4); Arbitration Decision and Award at 2. By agreement of the parties, CCRI did not delay its plan to offer a J-Term pending the outcome of the grievance procedure and arbitration. The program began in 2019. (Arbitration Decision and Award at 3.)
The parties agreed to submit the following question to arbitration:
"Did the College violate Articles I and II of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by refusing to submit courses it had selected for the J-Term (Winter Intercession) 2019 to the Curriculum Review Committee for approval?" Id. at 2.
The arbitrator, John J. Harrington conducted hearings on September 24, 2019, December 13, 2019, and December 18, 2019. Id. Dr. Rosemary Costigan, Vice President for Academic Affairs, testified on behalf of CCRI that all courses included in the J-Term were regular courses offered in other semesters. Id. at 6-7. She stated that the three-week courses provide students with the same content, credit hours and learning outcomes as during a 15-week session. Id. at 7. She asserted that modifications to the length of a course constituted a change modality and did not require resubmission of the course to the CRC. Id. at 5, 6. She provided examples in which CCRI had adopted changes in modality and scheduling without CRC involvement, such as when summer session classes extended beyond the usual 6-week session or were presented in fewer than six weeks. Id. at 5. Dr. Costigan further testified that changing an in-person class to distance learning or a combination of both did not require submission to CRC. Id. She testified that reapproval by CRC was required only if the course itself was modified and that once approved, a course may betaught in any modality if the learning outcomes, hours, and credits remain unchanged. Id. at 7-8, 20.
In contrast, the Union President5 disagreed and testified that certain changes in modality require CRC approval. Id. at 9. He referenced the CRC "Course Proposal Approval Tracking Form" that directs a proponent for course approval to identify the modality of the course. He testified that CCRI had attempted to eliminate that requirement, but that effort failed. Id. at 9-10. The Union leadership reasoned that including this requirement reflects an intent to involve CRC for changes in modality. Id. The Union President opined that any course approved for presentation in a 15-week format must be resubmitted to CRC before being offered in condensed format. Id. at 10-11. He noted that CRC adopted a policy in 2014 permitting minor changes in a course syllabus without CRC approval. Id. at 11.
The Union also offered CRC minutes showing courses submitted to CRC for reapproval in which the proposed modifications involved changes in modality and in the number of credits earned. Id. at 8, 9.
The long-standing Chair of the Psychology Department who oversees 15 full-time and between 40 and 50 part-time adjunct faculty members also testified. Id. at 12. He expressed concern that the foundational course, General Psychology, was offered during the J-Term. He noted that the professor of the J-Term class eliminated two required core chapters which negatively impacted learning outcomes. Id. at 12-13. The Chair testified that even though the course material for the J-Term General Psychology class included the same outcomes included in other semesters,the omission of the two chapters rendered it a "partial course." Id. at 12. When taught in regular semesters, students' learning and performance are assessed through in-class proctored exams. Id. at 13. J-Term General Psychology students took an at-home open book test. Id. However, the Chair acknowledged that when he found that a professor in the psychology department was not following required procedures, that professor was subject to removal from the class or might be required to receive developmental training. Id. at 14.
Next, the Chair of the Social Science Department expressed concerns about offering Sociology 1010 as a distance learning class during the J-Term. Id. at 15. The class had been taught remotely in other semesters, and the syllabus for the J-Term did not differ from previous classes. Id. However, when the Chair reviewed the course materials after the session ended, she realized that some required chapters were omitted. On this basis, she opined that certain approved learning outcomes were not achieved during the J-Term. Id.
The Chair of the Mathematics Department testified about the inclusion of Math 1139 as a distance learning class in the J-Term session, a course she previously taught both as an in-person lecture class and on-line. Id. At 17. She expressed concern that the J-Term students were not sufficiently tested to determine whether they achieved course outcomes. Id. It was unclear whether her concerns referred to the condensed format of the course or the failure of the particular professor to adhere to course requirements. See id.
The Chair of the Level 2 Nursing Department testified that she taught Pharmacology 3, during the J-Term, and the "content, credit hours and outcomes, including the exams, were the same as when the course was taught during a regular semester." Id. at 18. She further testified that as a department chair, she encountered instances in which a professor had neither followed theapproved syllabus nor presented all approved outcomes. Id. She handled those situations at the department level and did not refer the issue to the CRC. Id.
Following the close of testimony, the Union argued that a change in presentation...
To continue reading
Request your trial