The Unfinished Task from Negotiations '98
There can be no argument that our negotiating team performed
brilliantly when they delivered an agreement with significant gains in salary, and perhaps
most important during these days of employers and governments flexing their muscles, no
concessions.
We cannot forget that there were two goals set that we did
not achieve any gains on. Those goals were improvements in job security and gains in
academic freedom. Both of these goals relate directly to the quality of education that
students receive.
Job Security
Management would have you believe that our current job
security provisions are more than adequate, falling just short of employment guarantees.
This view is difficult to reconcile with the fact that the colleges have reduced full-time
faculty by close to 30 per cent since 1991. The language of the agreement does not prevent
the transfer of our work to non-bargaining unit employees, does not prevent fragmenting of
full-time work, and makes successful bumping cases the exception.
Faculty live with job insecurity as their reality, even
though all current industrial relations research shows that job insecurity destabilizes
and undermines its goals of harmony and cooperation.
Job security is a concern for students, the community, the
faculty and good administrators. Bad administrators use it as a weapon. Job security is
about more than being able to put food on the table, it is about meaning, value and
purpose of our jobs as counsellors, teachers and librarians.
The effects of losses of jobs are many. The most obvious
are increased class sizes, superficial evaluation techniques, course and program
reductions. The less obvious are caring, providing inspiration and encouragement, and
understanding and responding to students as unique individuals.
Whether jobs are lost through early retirement or through
layoff, positions are not being replaced. Student numbers are increasing as fast as
faculty numbers drop and the result is that students get less and we get less satisfaction
from our work.
Academic Freedom
Academic freedom is another anchor for quality education.
The downsizing decisions and the delivery decisions are being made by administrators and
by the government. Historically, many post-secondary institutions have a structure which
allows faculty to have a clear voice in academic issues. We believe that enhancing the
role of faculty in decision making on curriculum development, delivery and evaluation
methods, the appropriate use of technology in teaching, and class size will improve
quality.
The bottom-line decision-making of the colleges in the last
ten years has destabilized public colleges and encouraged the growth of private
competitors. As faculty we are committed to quality.
What avenues are available for addressing our
issues?
Since job security was not achieved in this round of bargaining, we
must concentrate our efforts on the task of removing the Tories because they have done the
most damage. To wait until we get back to the bargaining table would afford them an
opportunity to do more damage. We can do research to show the public that public education
is best for their sons and daughters and best for themselves as taxpayers. We can do this
in concert with teachers from the elementary, secondary, and university systems.
Locals will soon have information on strategic voting.
Considering the choices and the consequences, we really must get involved for ourselves,
our colleagues, and most of all, for our students.
After the Dust Settles: An Editorial
The recently completed negotiations were successful for the
gains made (particularly salary), and because management was prevented from introducing
contract changes that would have been disastrous for the quality of education of our
students. However, we were not able to add to the past tools available to fight the
relentless attack by management on our job security, workloads, class sizes, assignments
not recognized on the SWF, and their numerous other efforts to circumvent the collective
agreement and diminish the quality of education.
These attacks by management will continue, perhaps even
increase, because of management's lack of success at the bargaining table. Faculty must be
even more vigilant in protecting their rights under the collective agreement and in taking
the necessary steps with the assistance of their Locals to protect those rights. It would
be a prudent beginning for each Local to notify their college management, in writing, that
since a new collective agreement has been signed by both parties, the Local intends to
enforce all provisions of that new agreement, notwithstanding any past practices. In other
words, there is no "acquiescence" of any of the provisions of the contract. This
would include the distribution of SWFs to individual faculty and to the union Local within
the deadlines of the contract, and the provision to the Local of all individual agreements
of voluntary overtime. Application by the colleges of preparation and evaluation factors
(including where computers are used), and in crediting TCHs, must be closely watched and
violations pursued by individual faculty members and the Locals.
One of the constant messages that management delivered
across the bargaining table was that most faculty already were allowing the limits of the
contract to be ignored, and therefore, the limits cannot be of any real value to the
union. While we know this to be a gross exaggeration of the truth, it is an indicator of
the attitudinal, and perhaps legal, problems it can create - i.e. a licence to violate the
contract. We will only be able to protect quality education, and what management did not
achieve through negotiation, by vigilant enforcement of the collective agreement by both
the Locals and the individual members.
Further efforts must be made. We have all seen what the
Conservative government has done with respect to other major sectors of public workers.
The Ontario Public Service, hospitals, and elementary and secondary school teachers have
all been subject to massive attacks by the Ontario
Conservative government. And these attacks are on-going.
The OPS is currently in negotiations, cuts are continuing at the hospitals, and the
teachers' negotiations are in turmoil and confusion.
The actions of the Conservative government go beyond
efforts to bring efficiency, better quality, and more service (if you believe their
rhetoric). It is fundamental to their goals that any influence of unions speaking on
behalf of their members be rendered impotent. They want to eliminate any workplace
opposition to management and any effective means for workers to seek improved wages,
benefits, or working conditions. Their efforts to date will be viewed as mild when
compared to what will take place if they receive another mandate in the next election.
We are well aware that all three major political parties
receive support from our members. We believe that it is important that each member weigh
carefully the real agenda of the parties in the next election.
Allow us to congratulate you!
The CAAT Academic Divisional Executive, on behalf of the CAAT (A)
Division, would like to extend its appreciation to the Negotiating Team for a job well
done.
As we all know, this has been a most difficult round of
negotiations. The negotiating team had to deal with the aftermath of the Social Contract
Act and, until recently, an intransigent management bargaining team that was insistent on
achieving concessions, concessions, and only concessions, and giving nothing to faculty.
The management negotiating team wanted to wipe out the
workload protection in Article 11 as well as increase the number of Instructors at the
expense of full-time faculty. This would have had disastrous effects on the quality of
education that our students deserve. It would also have had severe effects on the job
security of full-time faculty. They also wanted to wipe out the In-Service Teacher
Training Certificate Program and the union time off for our bargaining team's members.
The CAAT (A) Negotiating Team was able to come up with a
settlement which has none of these concessions. As well as providing new steps on the
salary grid, the proposed settlement provides substantial salary increases. Settle-ments
like this don't just happen. They require a lot of hard work. The team recognizes that it
was the strong strike mandate that gave them the leverage to bring to us a fair deal.
Once again, the Divex thanks the Negotiating Team, who wish
to thank the membership for their strike vote.
Respect
The lack of respect for college faculty by college
management could not have been made more clear than when Conestoga President John Tibbits
and Humber President Robert Gordon spoke on a panel on higher education at Wilfred Laurier
University on June 16th/98. According to the local newspaper, College faculty were
portrayed as "...under-worked, too comfortable, and too set in their ways, ...".
Faculty were criticized for being "... resistant to change...", and responsible
for preventing "... institutions from doing things more efficiently and
cheaply." Only Wilfred Laurier University President Rosehart came to the defence of
faculty according to the report by rebuking the comments made by the College Presidents.
Clearly, we need to pursue a new attitude of respect toward college faculty at the very
top levels of college management .... something which the universities seem to have
already accomplished.
Consistently college management has not recognized, or even
denied, the progressive and innovative work accomplished by college faculty. It is the
faculty who know best the educational needs of the students and who must speak out
forcefully and communicate to the community when proposed changes would be harmful, or
beneficial, to the quality of education. This is particularly important as we enter a new
academic year with the prospect of a spring '99 provincial election.
Bean Counters
It has been clear for some time, and reinforced at
bargaining, that college management and the government have maintained a "bean
counter" philosophy to education at the colleges. The bottom-line, perceived
efficiencies through technology, and the mistaken belief that anyone can "teach"
at the colleges (except experienced faculty attempting to bump) are the principles that
have guided the colleges over the past several years. It is essential that faculty and the
Locals continue to try to make quality of the education provided to students as the
fundamental principle underlying the practices of the government and college management. A
good place to start would be by replacing this government in the next election. It is
important that students and the public understand the on-going pressures created by the
"bean counter" philosophy which has consistently worked to lower the quality of
education provided to college students.
Seniority Rights and our Collective Agreement
The Union has recently won a "bumping" grievance
at Fanshawe and a "bumping" grievance at George Brown. Two wins in a single
summer are significant since in the previous 20 years there was only a single victory in
this area. These wins have taken on more importance since the language on job security was
not improved during the recent set of negotiations. These victories must be examined
carefully and used to create a template for future success.
The grievor in the Fanshawe case taught communications and
computer applications in the Community Access division of the college. The arbitration
dealt solely with his claim to a position in post-secondary teaching Introductory
Information and Data Processing and Language Fundamentals.
The grievor in the George Brown case had been a star
student in the Hospitality program at that college, and after a short time in the industry
had returned to teach a variety of courses in the Hospitality program, including courses
in supervision. She claimed a position in the Business Division Human Resources Program
and a position in the Hospitality program.
There are several lessons that can be learned from these
awards and Locals and grievors are encouraged to pay attention to the following issues:
1. Emphasize that it is a Sufficient Ability or Threshold
Clause in the Agreement
The senior employee does not have to demonstrate that they
are equal to or better than the junior employee in order to keep their job. The union must
show they have sufficient ability to perform the tasks of the junior employee. This is the
threshold for success. It is not a matter of competition between employees. The grievor in
the George Brown case did not have the years of industry experience possessed by the
junior employee, but the grievor was able to perform the duties of the junior employee.
2. Define the position claimed retrospectively
The grievor must set out two junior employees whose
positions he or she is claiming. The concept of a position is artificial and the
definition of a position has created problems for the union. The arbitrators have defined
a position as either a snapshot consisting of the junior employee's assignment at the time
of layoff, or alternatively, the core pattern of assignments that the junior employee has
completed. In either case the college was not able to defeat the seniority claim by
asserting that the position included courses which had not yet been assigned.
3. Show "skill, competence and ability to fulfill the
position
The grievor is not limited to showing that he or she has
taught the same courses as the junior employee. Evidence that the same subject matter has
been taught in other courses, or that the college has planned to assign the grievor to the
same or similar course (for example, the grievor was placed on a backup list for the
course), or that the grievor has gained the experience outside the college, should be
presented to the arbitration board. Careful study of the subject matter involved in the
assignment will be required even before a grievance is filed.
Arbitrators have accepted that the senior employee needs to
show that he or she is able to step into the position of the junior employee and perform
the "core duties" of that job without a training period. They have not held that
the senior employee must be able to perform every item of the junior employee's position
virtually immediately. If arbitrators had not made this decision then we would be limited
to claiming positions which consisted of a set of identical courses taught by the senior
employee in the recent past. The union must be prepared to respond to management who may
focus on a peripheral part of the junior employee's tasks which the senior employee is not
able to perform without some additional training.
4. Show that the grievor can
"step into the job"
A successful grievor must be able to show that they can
step into the position claimed. There is no training period or testing period provided in
the bumping sections of our agreement. Arbitrators have acknowledged that some time to
"brush up" on the subject matter prior to class would be acceptable, and they
have suggested that this would include the minimum time for preparation allowed any
professor on a SWF. Evidence showing that the grievor needs a longer period of time could
be fatal to a claim.
5. Show the grievor can deal with the breadth and depth of
the new assignment
In the George Brown case, the claim of the grievor to the
position teaching Human Resources Management was rejected because the Arbitration Board
decided that the breadth and depth involved in this specialized course could not be
performed by the grievor, who had taught Human Resources as part of the Hospitality
program. It must be noted that the arbitrator in the Fanshawe case indicated that the fact
that the grievor had taught in a non-post-secondary program was not sufficient to reject a
claim to a position in a post-secondary program.
6. Consider the nature of the courses being claimed
The arbitrator in the George Brown case considered the
grievor to be weak on practical experience and the fact that the position claimed involved
the teaching of theory courses was a factor in his decision. Also, in both cases the
positions successfully claimed involved teaching introductory courses.
7. Deal with subsequent job postings
The college, in the George Brown case, attempted to use the
job posting which had led to the hiring of the junior employee as evidence that the senior
employee was not qualified to bump the junior employee. The arbitrator noted that the
college could not raise the threshold for a position by using hiring criteria which did
not relate to the assignment. The specific job posting in Hospitality included the
requirement for a degree in Sociology/Psychology which did not relate to the position but
was in fact a degree held by the junior employee.
If we use the lessons of these awards to the fullest and
prepare our cases accordingly, we will be able to enhance the job security of our members
until we are able to make real gains in job security language in the next round of
bargaining.
CLC Conference
Training - It's Our Right
This conference of the Canadian Labour Congress was a great
success for public sector teachers. The Congress presented their new protocol on
education. As well as being a principled defense of public education, the protocol
provides a resolution mechanism to handle the problem of competition within the labour
movement for public education dollars. Copies of the protocol are available upon request.
Division Meeting
Delegates from CAAT (Academic) Division will be meeting in
Toronto on December 5 & 6. If you have concerns, raise them with your Local President
so that the union can learn of your concerns.
DIVISIONAL EXECUTIVE
Paddy Musson, Chair,
Local 110 at Fanshawe College
phone: (519) 452-4205
fax: (519) 453-5345
e-mail: local110.opseu@sympatico.ca
Peter McKeracher, Vice-Chair,
Local 354 at Durham College
phone: (705) 786-2214
e-mail: mckeracherp@notesmail.durhamc.on.ca
Walter Boettger, Local 237 at Conestoga
phone: (519) 748-5220 ext. 734
fax: (519) 634-8598
e-mail: boettger@mgl.ca
Bob Pando, Local 240 at Mohawk College
phone: (905) 575-1212 ext.3468
fax: (905) 575-2341
e-mail: bepando@sympatico.ca
Fernand Bégin, Local 470 at La Cite
phone: (613) 742-2493 ext.2065
fax: (613) 742-2484
e-mail: 695107@ican.net
Paddy Musson, Chair
Authorized for Distribution:
Leah Casselman, President, OPSEU
Return to
Colleges Index
