The following guide is designed to assist Contract Instructors and managers interpret the Collective Agreement by using real-life examples to illustrate their application. All scenarios, including names and course numbers, are fictitious.
The appointment of all Contract Instructors at Carleton University is subject to the provisions of Articles 15-18 of the CUPE 4600 Unit #2 Collective Agreement. It may be helpful to refer to these Articles when reading the below scenarios.
In addtion to reading these hiring process examples, we recommend members consult with union representatives if they have questions or concerns. We also recommend that members regularly review their CUPE 4600 seniority listing on Carleton University's Human Resources website.
Unless otherwise indicated the incumbents have received evaluations of 4.0 or above:
Jo and Mike both apply to teach STAT 2003. They are the only candidates who apply and neither one has taught at Carleton before. Who should be hired?
Answer: The Union has no position on who should be hired.
Explanation: While the Collective Agreement sets out the hiring process, its provisions only apply to members (any person who has taught at least one course at Carleton in the last two years). If no applicants are members of Unit #2 of CUPE 4600, it is entirely up to the Chair or Director who to hire. She/he should hire the most qualified applicant.
Steve and Patty are members of CUPE 4600 Unit 2 and both apply to teach SOCI 3032. Neither of them have taught that specific class before. Both have comparable teaching experience and expertise in the area of the class. Steve has 3 seniority points and Patty has 5 seniority points. Who should you hire?
Answer: Patty (Article 16.3c)
Explanation: When applicants are members of CUPE 4600 Unit 2, and their qualifications to teach a particular course are relatively equal, the applicant with the most seniority is the correct hire.
Paul and Andre both apply for SOWK 1009. They are both members and incumbents for the class (the have both taught SOWK 1009 before) for the class. Paul last taught SOWK in summer 2009 and taught it twice. Andre last taught the course in Fall 2010 and has taught it 3 times. Paul has 7 total seniority points and Andre has 5.5 seniority points. Who should be hired?
Answer: Paul (Articles 16.4c & 16.5)
Explanation: When two incumbents apply for the same course, the more senior incumbent must be hired, regardless of who taught it last or how many times each candidate has taught the course.
Nigel, Juan and Janet apply to teach CRIM 3004. Nigel and Janet have taught the class before (they are incumbents). Juan has taught many other classes in the CRIM department, but not CRIM 3004. Juan has 20 seniority points, Nigel had 7 seniority points, and Janet has 6.5. Who should be hired?
Answer: Nigel (Article 16.4a)
Explanation: Nigel and Janet have incumbency for this course and incumbency for a specific course is more important than seniority in making hiring decisions. While Juan is qualified and the most senior amongst the applicants, those who have taught the class before have priority. Nigel is hired because he has more seniority than Janet. If Nigel turns the course down, Janet must be hired.
Allison is a non-member (not taught at Carleton in the last 2 years). She applies to teach POLI 3432. Jane is an incumbent for POLI 3432 and also applies for the course. Allison is a qualified teacher and an expert in the field, but has no seniority nor is she affiliated with the university in any way (she’s not a post doc, visiting scholar, or grad student). Who should be hired?
Explanation: Incumbency is the most important factor in this case. If the incumbent has received teaching evaluation scores at or above 4.0 in that course, they must be hired to teach the course, even if there is a non-member who might be considered an expert in the field.
If the incumbent's teaching evaluation is below 4.0, the Chair or Director has the option to have a meeting with the CI. If, through a conversation with the CI, the teaching score can be explained to be an anomaly (i.e. the CI has a history of evaluations above 4.0 in that course; the CI has a bove 4.0 in other classes in the same year; there are external factors that contributed to a lower score; etc.) no further action needs to be taken. If the teaching score is not viewed as anomalous, then further action must be taken before the CI can be disqualified from being hired for the course.
Reema and Bob both apply for MATH 3344. Reema is a member of CUPE 4600 and has 2 seniority points, but has not taught that course before. Bob is a non-member and doctoral student at Carleton. Who should be hired?
Answer: Either may be hired. If she chooses to hire Bob, certain conditions must be met.
Explanation: The Collective Agreement permits Chairs or Department Heads to hire graduate students in exception to the regular hiring provisions of Article 16, up to 17% at the Faculty level. The Chair may only do so if Bob is registered and has been appointed to 1.5 or fewer courses pursuant to Article 17 already. Before any hirings can be under the Article 17 clause, the Dean must be contacted to make a Department's Unit 17 allocation.
If a graduate student is hired to teach a course pursuant to Article 17 they do not have incumbency rights to the course. They also do not accumulate any seniority until hired through a a competition.
Once any courses for the that term have been posted, graduate students may no longer be appointed by the use of Article 17.
Members who are also graduate students can be hired based on incumbency and/or seniority, where appropriate.
Natasha and Anton both apply for SYST 2102. Neither has taught the class before. Natasha has .5 seniority points. Anton was hired previously for one class in SYST under Article 17 (as a grad student), but he has since graduated. Both candidates are equal in qualifications and experience, who should be hired?
Answer: Natasha (Article 17.3)
Explanation: As Anton has only been hired asa Article 17 appointee, he should be treated as though he has no seniority. In this case Natasha should be hired because she is a qualified member with seniority.
Samuel and Ming are both members of CUPE 4600. Samuel has 4.5 seniority points and Ming has 1 seniority point. They have both applied to teach a new course, ECON 3651. Ming wrote her doctoral dissertation in the field and Samuel is an incumbent for ECON 2651. Who should be hired?
A: Either may be hired, but the Chair/Department Head must justify her decision (Article 16.3e)
Explanation: When the Chair hires a more junior member, she must be able to show that this individual is demonstrably more qualified (i.e. that the applicants are not relatively equally qualified). If the Chair determines that the candidates are relatively equally qualified, or has not asked for sufficient demonstration of qualifications, she must make the appointment based on seniority.
Amy is a non-member and has no the affiliation with Carleton. She applies to teach ENGL 3818. Maria has 2 seniority points, but has never taught ENGL 3818 and also applies for the course. Amy has taught at Queen's for 10 years and is an expert in the field. Maria is qualified to teach many courses in ENGL, but has no particular expertise in the subject matter covered in ENGL 3432. Who should be hired?
Answer: Either one could be hired.
Explanation: If the Chair or Department Head determines that Maria is not qualified to teach ENGL 3432 then he may look to external candidates. If he determines that maria is qualified, he should hire her. For any job posting, if there is a member who is qualified, that is who should be hired.
Ryan is a non-member and has no other affiliation with Carleton. He applies to teach BIOL 1799. Don has 1 seniority point, but has never taught BIOL 1799 and also applies for the course. Ryan and Don have comparable teaching experience and expertise in the area. Who should be hired?
Explanation: When there is a qualified applicant who is a member, the member is the correct hire.
13 people apply for one course. What is the process for making a decision about who to hire? ?
1. Establish if there are any incumbents (someone who has taught the course before in the last 5 years and has student evaluations at or above 4.0)
2. If there are no incumbents members must be considered first. If it is established that there is at least one member who is qualified that is who should be hired.
3. If there are no incumbents or qualified members the Union takes no position on who should be hired.