Report on bargaining
The bargaining
teams met October 21-23. These were the days management agreed to.
In an effort to
move talks along, the Union bargaining team withdrew 17 previously tabled
demands and made 11 substantive amendments to other demands. Nothing worked. The
employer disregarded those items that we withdrew and said we hadn’t gone far
enough.
Management
withdrew none of their concession demands and falsely accused the Union of not
wanting a settlement. Management did amend their wage offer from 1.25%, 1.5%,
1.5% and 2% to 1.5%, 1.5%, 2% and 2%. They still refuse to acknowledge our key
referent groups - university and high school teachers - instead comparing us to
City of Toronto workers, City of Windsor workers, Ontario Public Service
workers, and Liquor Board employees, none of whom are in our referent groups.
The Union
addressed management’s workload proposals, the unacceptability of concessions,
and their failure to meet the recommendations of the Workload Task Force.
Management accused the Union of tabling workload demands that were not a part of
the Workload Task Force recommendations. The Union’s demands come directly from
our members and yes, some valid workload demands were not addressed through the
Workload Task Force Report. Management also has workload demands not recommended
by the Workload Task Force Report. The accusation that the Union is wrong to
table such workload demands while management does the same thing is hypocritical
and deceitful. The Union is intently interested in a settlement but management’s
offer, not significantly different than it was in August, is not a settlement
position.
They have
offered nothing on job security, nothing on benefits, nothing for Union rights
and want to take away workload protections. They claim to respect the
recommendations in the Workload Task Force Report but refuse to address any
recommendations that don’t speak to their priorities. They’ve argued that the
workload formula works well but refuse to respond to our proposals to have SWFs
for Partial-load teachers, Counsellors and Librarians. The Workload Task Force
Report talks about academic freedom but the employer hasn’t even spoken those
words to date – as though they find them too distasteful to even speak.
Bargaining and the Economic
Climate
Many of you have
been wondering how recent economic fluctuations and the statements made by the
Ontario Minister of Finance will affect bargaining. The numbers are important
but must be read within the context of the entirety of the Minister’s Economic
Statement.
While presenting
2009 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review on October 22, Finance Minister
Dwight Duncan stated, “… we will also continue to focus on our key priorities –
the priorities most important to Ontarians: job creation, health care and
education. He further reiterated “Education is, and always has been, one of the
McGuinty government’s core priorities.”
The Union’s wage
demands are based on the report of the Wages and Benefits Task Force, chaired by
William Marcotte, released on July 10, 1991. The unanimous view of that joint
task force and its independent chair was that specific “referent groups”
(comparator groups) should be used for CAAT Academic bargaining. High school and
university teachers are the key referent groups that have formed the basis for
salary and benefits negotiations in successive rounds of bargaining since 1991.
Our referent
groups have successfully negotiated current settlements that contain salary and
benefits that greatly exceed anything that management has brought to the table.
Several of these settlements came during the recession, and as such reflect the
current economic climate. The economic climate is only one of the indicators
that shapes the settlements our referent groups have reached.
Management’s
offer of a 4-year deal of 1.5%, 1.5%, 2.0%, 2.0%, no additional steps, and
absolutely zero by way of benefit improvements, is inadequate and ignores
settlements reached by our referent groups.
Management not
only ignores our established referent groups but they also turn their backs on
the Letter of Understanding Re: Salary Issue on page 124 of the Collective
Agreement, which states:
“It is the
intention of the parties to continue to address the salary adjustment issue in
the years immediately following the expiry of this Agreement.”
Management’s current offer
makes no real effort to honour this letter.
Interestingly,
Colleges hired their own consulting firm to establish referent groups for
administrative compensation. They clearly understand the importance of the
referent group system in determining salary and benefits but they are seeking to
deny faculty that same structure.
The Council’s
Contract Updates in September and October cite salary settlements for groups
that are not our referent groups. This is a clear attempt to redefine the basis
of salary and benefit negotiations that has existed since 1991.
There are groups
outside our referent groups that management does not cite - other College
employees for example. College support staff received 3%, 3%, and 3% plus a flat
rate bonus valued at another 1%.
Collegiality in determining evaluation methods
Currently, the supervisor is obligated to
meet with the teacher prior to the issuing of the SWF to discuss the content of
the SWF, including but not limited to evaluation and feedback methods. Where a
course has more than one type of evaluation and feedback, the teacher and the
supervisor try to agree on a proportionate attribution of hours for evaluation.
Failing such agreement, the supervisor would apply evaluation factors based on
the weight attached to each type of evaluation for the final grade for the
course as set out in the course outline.
Management proposes to scrap this system.
To replace it, management proposes a system
where for every course (not just those with multiple evaluation methods), before
the method(s) of evaluation and feedback are established, the supervisor will
discuss the method(s) with the affected teachers as a group. The group may be
teachers who teach that course, or the teachers in the program, or it may be a
single teacher where that person is the only affected teacher.
Management’s proposal requires that the group
and the supervisor “shall endeavour, in a collegial manner, to agree upon the
evaluation method(s) for the course.”
The report of the independently-chaired
Workload Task Force, agreed to by the management and faculty Task Force
representatives, stressed the critical need for the colleges to shift to a
collegial way of operating. A proposal that the group of teachers and the
supervisor try to come to agreement on evaluation methods might seem, at first
look, to be in line with the recommendation to create a more collegial process.
It is not.
The point of decision-making is where the
collegiality stops in management’s proposal. They state that where two-thirds of
the faculty and the supervisor reach agreement, then the agreed-upon evaluation
method would apply to all who teach the course. Where the supervisor disagrees,
even if the faculty are unanimous, management rights would apply and the
supervisor would get to apply the evaluation method that he or she determines,
whether or not that conforms to the faculty view. The supervisor would have free
rein to decide on the evaluation method. To get that free rein, the supervisor
would simply withhold agreement. Management’s proposal says that the supervisor
must not be unreasonable – that is, has to have a reason. This is fragile
protection at best.
The Union agrees with the Task Force that if
a two-thirds majority decide then the individuals should not be entitled to
dispute that decision through the WMG/WRA. But the management proposal would
take away the right to challenge your manager on evaluation unless you can prove
that he or she acted without reason.
What about special circumstances? In their
proposal, if a teacher believed that he or she had a special circumstance that
warranted a departure from the determined evaluation factors, that teacher would
first have to win agreement from two-thirds of the affected teachers and the
supervisor, otherwise they would have to abide by the course outline.
The only condition whereby the WMG and WRA
could be accessed would be by the group of teachers (not two-thirds, but the
entire group) if in dispute with the methods set by the supervisor. Only the
group could refer the dispute, not any individual teacher.
Webster-dictionary.org notes that
“collegiality” is “characterized by or having authority vested equally among
colleagues.” The Workload Task Force stated that collegiality is one of the
“important objectives in any college system” and recommended that “the parties
consider mechanisms that will enhance collegiality.”
Under management’s proposal the simple
disagreement of the supervisor could negate their expert opinion. This is not
collegiality.
The management proposal is not about academic
freedom – another central recommendation of the Workload Task Force. Providing
the supervisor with essentially unfettered freedom to set evaluation would be a
step in the opposite direction from the Workload Task Force report.
The Union’s proposal on evaluation does meet
the test of collegiality. By the Union’s proposal, if two-thirds of the faculty
concur on evaluation methods, that concurrence would prevail even if the
supervisor disagrees.
The faculty are the subject experts and know
best how to evaluate in the best interest of quality and student success. In the
Union proposal, the only time the supervisor would get to decide the evaluation
method is if two-thirds of the affected faculty cannot agree. Where there is no
consensus, the manager decides.
Faculty know that many managers decide
evaluation factors based on student numbers and budget, not subject expertise.
Flexibility and Modified Workload Arrangements
The Workload Task Force made several
recommendations, one of which addressed the administrative concern to add a
measure of flexibility to the workload formula process. This flexibility was to
apply only to certain specific courses or programs and only where both
management and faculty agreed that such changes were desirable. The Workload
Task Force suggested that Modified Workload Arrangements would apply only to
courses such as clinical and field placements or studio and group-work programs.
In making their recommendation, the Workload
Task Force set certain criteria that must be followed when entering into a
Modified Workload Arrangement. The introduction of a Modified Workload
Arrangement is to be dependent on meeting seven criteria. They are:
1. The Union must agree to the
introduction of a Modified Workload Arrangement and its agreement must not be
unreasonably withheld.
2. The Modified Workload Arrangement is
limited to specific courses or programs
3. Two thirds (2/3) of the faculty in a
course or program must agree to the Modified Workload Arrangement.
4. Any teacher who does not agree to
participate in a Modified Workload Arrangement can opt out and have all the
regular provisions of Article 11 apply to their workload.
5. Individuals participating in a
Modified Workload Arrangement must not have an increase in workload over their
previous year.
6. All workload must be fully
documented.
7. Disputes regarding the implementation
of a Modified Workload Arrangement are to be resolved through expedited hearings
before the WMG and a WRA, and specifically the Union would have standing before
the WRA.
Unfortunately, management’s proposals at the
bargaining table have ignored many of the recommendations of the Workload Task
Force and are vastly over reaching in their eagerness to avoid the workload
formula. Their proposal had no limits on which courses or programs could be
subjected to a Modified Workload Arrangement, the number of weeks worked in a
year, the number of hours worked in a week, the length of a workday, the number
of workdays in a week, and the number of sections or courses that could be
assigned to a teacher. It would eliminate the SWF and the application of any
factors for preparation and evaluation, the requirement to notify faculty in
advance of either their assignment or their schedule, and any limits on class
size. In addition, while the annual limits on teaching contact hours and contact
days would remain they may not necessarily apply in any one year, but rather
they could be averaged over the life of the Collective Agreement.
The Union’s proposal insures that Modified
Workload Arrangement workloads do not exceed those of the previous year, that
the workload is measured using the preparation and evaluation factors as set out
in the formula and that all complementary functions must be accounted for. There
must be special protection for probationary faculty, and any Modified Workload
Arrangement must be limited to specific clinical, studio, field placement or
group work programs only. In addition, the provisions governing non-teaching
periods would apply.
The intent of the Workload Task Force in
recommending Modified Workload Arrangement was to allow the College flexibility
in the timing and distribution of work and not to scrap completely a formula
that works. To that end, the Union agrees to forego weekly maxima and the
accompanying overtime compensation that would otherwise be applicable, and the
limit on the number of weeks that could be worked in a year. All other annual
maxima would apply and no Modified Workload Arrangement could exceed one year in
duration; there is to be no multi-year averaging. Any participation in a
Modified Workload Arrangement would be voluntary and apply only to a limited
number of courses or programs.
The Workload Task Force urged both sides to
approach the introduction of Modified Workload Arrangement cautiously and that
the successful modification of the formula “shall occur incrementally”. The
Union considers this to be sound advice and has proposed that the use of
Modified Workload Arrangement be limited to 15 teachers or 5 per cent of the
faculty at any college, whichever is less. By comparison, management has
proposed that up to 20 per cent of all teachers could participate in a Modified
Workload Arrangement. During the term of the last Collective Agreement, the
college was able to initiate several pilot projects, which, despite the
enticement of $1,000 additional compensation, only attracted 0.8 per cent of the
faculty.
The Workload Task Force issued a unanimous
report with recommendations. The Union has proposed language that faithfully
implements all the recommendations of the report. The proposal addresses the
concerns for flexibility expressed by management yet protects those faculty
engaged in a Modified Workload Arrangement from excessive workloads and abuse.
Faculty are prepared to be flexible in some instances but are not prepared to
abandon the SWF with its formula approach to measuring workload.
Professional Standards and Relationships
The final and unanimous recommendation of the
Work Load Task Force addresses the issue of Professional Standards and
Relationships:
“Given the rise of applied degrees,
college/university partnerships, and collaborative programs, Ontario’s Colleges
are clearly expanding and developing as complex institutions of higher
education. “We recommend, therefore, that the parties consider mechanisms that
will enhance collegiality, professional development, and academic freedom.”
In the present round of negotiations, the
Union has proposed modifications to the Collective Agreement that would put
these distinct, but interrelated concepts, into the college system.
Academic Freedom
At the faculty demand setting meeting in
February 2009, Academic Freedom was voted as one of the top three priorities for
negotiations. It followed only workload and salary. The Workload Task Force
Report which was released March 20, 2009 confirmed the faculty decision that
academic freedom needs to be a priority for the college system. The Workload
Task Force Report states that the parties must consider mechanisms that will
enhance academic freedom.
Accordingly, the Union has tabled a number of
recommendations that address academic freedom. Two of these are an academic
freedom clause of the sort found in all university collective agreements and a
proposal for an educational council similar to university senates.
So far, management has rejected all of the
faculty’s academic freedom based proposals and has refused to table any counter
proposals that address the Workload Task Force recommendation on academic
freedom.
Colleges now offer university credits and
Baccalaureate degrees, have numerous partnership and articulation agreements and
have developed as complex institutions of higher education. Academic freedom,
long a cornerstone of the university environment, is a crucial next step in the
maturing and evolution of the college system to ensure quality post-secondary
education.
Collegiality
The Workload Task Force pointed out that
operating in a collegial manner is an important objective for any college
system. Dictionaries define collegiality as having power and authority vested
equally among colleagues based on mutual understanding, respect and trust.
The Task Force applied the concept of
collegiality to their recommendation on evaluation with the following: “The
underlying practical issue in this area is how the decision to adopt a
particular evaluation method is, but this practical issue masks more fundamental
questions of academic freedom, professional expertise, and collegiality.” and
“What we feel is needed in this case is a method to balance pedagogical demands
against the proper utilization of teaching resources in a more collegial
fashion.”
While management pays lip service to the
concept of collegiality, their contract proposals leave all decision making
firmly in the hands of supervisors.
Professional Development
Writing about professional development the
Task Force says:
“…we make no recommendations in this area,
but do note that the need for professional development time for training,
networking, becoming familiar with changes in the existing technology, and
research must be met if the college system is to remain vibrant.”
The Union proposed several improvements to
professional development leave. Management agreed to increase the maximum
professional development salary from 70 per cent to 80 per cent. Faculty will be
able to attain this level after eleven years of service. The Union believes this
will improve professional development utilization. This goes some way to
addressing the Workload Task Force recommendation under Professional Standards
and Relationships.
Conclusions
The Workload Task Force Report concludes with
this paragraph:
“Collegiality, academic freedom, and
professional development are important objective
s in any college system and some of our other
recommendations have also tried to take these objectives into account.”
These matters are so important to the
Workload Task Force that they not only stand alone as a recommendation on their
own but have also been incorporated into other recommendations of the Report.
Negotiations News is authorized for distribution by Ted
Montgomery, Chair, CAAT-Academic bargaining team, and Warren (Smokey) Thomas,
President
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 100 Lesmill Road, Toronto, ON M3B 3P8
www.opseu.org
Negotiations News Index |
