UPDATED FALL 2020

Sessional Lecturer Hiring Guidelines

The following guidelines pertain to the recruitment, selection and appointment process for Sessional Lecturers pursuant to the Unit 2 Collective Agreement between the University and CUPE 3913 (the Collective Agreement).  Templates available to assist in meeting hiring requirements (attached below):

• Sessional Applicant Hiring Assessment Template
• Sessional Applicant Interview Assessment Template (attached below)

Role of the Chair

The chair has responsibility for:

• Establishing the search committee and chairing or assigning a suitable designate to chair the search committees;
• Determining timelines;
• Ensuring adherence to established policies and procedures including the Collective Agreement, the Human Rights Policy, and the Employment Equity Policy ; and
• Appointing the most qualified candidates and determining the starting wage rate for new hires in accordance with the Collective Agreement.

Search Committee

Per 11.04(c)(i): Selection Committees are required for all work assignments except where a SL has exercised their Right of First Refusal. The selection committee must consist of:

• At least 3 people 
• NEW: At least two shall have knowledge, experience, and expertise in the area(s) of specialization of the course.
  • Areas of specialization are those disciplines where the University of Guelph confers degrees in accordance with the Academic Calendars.
  • At the University of Guelph-Humber, areas of specialization are the degree programs as per the Academic Calendar.
• At least one member of an equity-seeking group (women, LGBTQ, Aboriginal, racialized, persons with disabilities).
• All Selection Committee members require training in inclusive recruitment and hiring practices from Diversity and Human Rights (the same training as members of UGFA search committees). Online training for selection committees: Principles of Equitable Recruitment: Unconscious Bias in the Faculty Hiring Process. 

The process for the selection of committee members should be fair, transparent and objective. 

Procedural fairness requires that all members of the search committee take part in all aspects of the hiring process for any one work assignment. The search committee should conduct its work in an atmosphere of complete confidentiality. This does not preclude seeking advice from Faculty and Academic Staff Relations or Diversity and Human Rights (DHR).

Requirements of the Work Assignment

Work assignments requirements form the basis upon which all hiring decisions are made.  Requirements should be based on the following considerations:

• Qualifications (academic and professional). These are divided into two categories:
  • Required qualifications – the minimum requirements an applicant must possess to be the selected applicant, and
  • Preferred qualifications – the additional qualifications an applicant may possess to be the selected applicant;
• Required and preferred qualifications include well-articulated:
  • Teaching competence;
  • Capability, skill and ability; and
  • Prior relevant experience.

The requirements of the work assignment are the minimum required for the safe, efficient and reliable performance of the required tasks. They must be logically connected to the duties being performed. Academic units who have non-standard requirements (e.g., a requirement that the successful candidate be a particular gender) are encouraged to contact Faculty and Academic Staff Relations prior to posting for advice.

Advertising the work assignment

Work assignment postings must:

• Accurately reflect all requirements and job duties.
• Be written in inclusive language.
• Be posted for at least 15 calendar days (per Article 11) unless an exemption applies (per Article 11.02(b)).

All work assignments are posted on the central hiring website. The website ensures that all requirements under the Collective Agreement are met and allows the University to track all work assignments. Once posted, links to the advertisements may be distributed in a variety of ways including bulletins, listservs, websites, job banks and to professional organizations.

Screening and Evaluating Applications

Order of Consideration

1. Right of First Refusal – Candidates who exercise Right of First Refusal are appointed to work assignments first. With competing RoFRs, the person who has the most seniority in the course (taught it the most) is assigned.
2. Qualifications – Where there are no candidates with RoFR, the academic unit considers all candidates who meet the minimum posted qualifications. The successful applicant will typically be the most qualified applicant (highest scoring) based on the application package and information available to the academic unit (student feedback questionnaires. performance evaluations, etc.). It is reasonable to interview applicants in the assessment of qualifications.
3. Seniority Points – When candidates are deemed equally qualified (i.e., score within 10% of each other), the candidate with the most seniority points will be the successful applicant.
4. If No Qualified Applicants – If there are no qualified applicants in the pool (i.e., no-one meets the minimum total score for appointment), the academic unit may access any applications which are currently on file (typically applicants in the previous 4 semesters) in the academic unit for a suitable candidate. If none or no one accepts, the academic unit may then assign the work to another person deemed suitable. This is a circumstance where the successful SL will need to "apply" to a Non-Public posting. The academic unit may also choose to repost the work assignment if time permits.

Right of First Refusal

A Sessional Lecturer who has successfully taught a course is deemed to have the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) for that course if it is offered as a CUPE work assignment in one of the following SIX semesters.  The posting should indicate that there is a candidate that carries the Right of First Refusal (RoFR) by using the checkbox on the posting form.

Academic units determine prior to posting which SLs hold ROFR, and if there are competing ROFRs, which SL(s) would be successful.  If two Sessional Lecturers hold a RoFR, the tie is broken first by the number of seniority points in the course, and if still tied, then by the total number of seniority points.  The academic unit then issues an email to those SLs when the work assignment is posted and how to exercise their RoFR via the online system.  The SL must respond within a reasonable time frame (typically 3 days); failure to do so is deemed a refusal to exercise the ROFR. Issuing the email invitation to exercise a ROFR is tantamount to extending an Offer of Appointment (which cannot be withdrawn without financial implications). 

Once a Sessional Lecturer has exercised their Right of First Refusal and the posting has closed, the academic unit will offer them the work assignment.

Assessing Applications

Applications must be assessed on the basis of the posted requirements of the work assignment. The process for assessing applications is generally as follows:

1. The Committee, either individually or as a group, reviews all applications and determines which of the applicants DO NOT MEET the minimum requirements. 
2. Only those applicants who MEET the minimum requirements are further assessed. 
3. The Committee scores each applicant who MEETS the minimum requirements based on a pre-determined hiring assessment/rubric.  The committee may choose to 'short-list' the highest ranking applicants.

The Committee then has two options:

1. Interview shortlisted candidates; or,
2. Make a selection based on materials submitted with the application.

Academic units are encouraged to interview short-listed candidates, particularly where they have not taught previously in the unit.

The Hiring Rubric

Click here for a sample hiring rubric template.  Per 11.04(c): The Selection Committee must establish a hiring rubric for evaluating applicants' qualifications in advance of reviewing applications.  This is best determined prior to posting the required qualifications of the work.  A rubric is required for the assessment of applications for all work assignments.  A hiring rubric is not required where a candidate with Right of First Refusal is appointed to a work assignment.

General Considerations

• Academic units are free to design their own rubric. A sample rubric is attached.
• Rubrics developed by academic units must include:
  • Academic unit;
  • Course code and section number;
  • Selection Committee membership and confirmation that they have completed the Anti-Bias training;
  • Candidate name;
  • Number of seniority points;
  • Assessment criteria and weightings (to total 100) based on the minimum required and preferred qualifications as posted;
  • The minimum score required for an appointable candidate (if applicable);
  • Candidate’s score; and,
  • For the successful candidate, a rationale.
• Required and preferred qualifications must match those identified in the work assignment posting.
• The weight for each qualification must be determined before the work assignment is posted.
• Evaluate each category based on the requirements of each individual work assignment. This evaluation is based on the materials provided by the candidate in their application and other relevant considerations.
• Academic units may use prior course evaluations or performance evaluations in making hiring decisions provided they have been made available to the candidate (i.e., student course evaluations must have been provided to the instructor before they can inform hiring decisions).
• When two applicants are equal[1], the candidate with more seniority points is awarded the work assignment.
• It is recommended that the successful candidate be interviewed if they have never taught in the academic unit. If any interviews occur, committee notes must be attached to the candidate’s form.

Scoring Candidates

The sample rubric gives candidates a score out of 100. Academic units are free to use their own method of determining the weight of particular qualifications.