BUFA Response to Nov. 20 Communqué from Dr. Poff:

In her latest communiqué (Nov. 20), Dr. Poff continues to confuse the issues and mislead the public about BUFA’s bargaining position.  The emphasis of her attack now seems to be on the ‘back-to-work compensation’ that BUFA is seeking.  She calls the lump sum BUFA has demanded “back to work money to compensate them for the time they have been on strike.”  She knows this is not what it is.  We note that the lump sum currently requested by BUFA has been lowered from our previous proposal.

The “widening of the gap” that the Employer refers to is solely the result of the Employer’s attempt to rewrite the Back-to-Work Agreement.  In seeking to conclude a settlement last week, BUFA asked Scott Lamont to forward, in writing, what he described as “minor changes” to the 2008 Back-to-Work-Agreement that the employer had agreed to use as the model. It was in his written response that BUFA became aware of the fact that the employer had no intention of paying faculty for work they would perform to finish the term should it be extended.  Of course, BUFA found this to be unacceptable.  This has become the basis of President Poff’s claim that BUFA has significantly increased wage demands.  This is further evidence that the employer is not interested in getting students back into the classroom.

Rather than compensation for the time members have been on strike, BUFA is requesting compensation for the service its members will provide once they return to work.  Unlike a factory, where workers cannot be forced upon return from a strike to put in uncompensated overtime to recover lost production, the faculty at Brandon University will actually make up the work they did not do during the strike.  In a factory, the year’s production would either be shortened by the length of the strike, or made up by having workers put in paid overtime.  At a university, the year’s (term’s) production will be fully delivered by BUFA members, provided that the term is not cancelled.  Yes, it will be under unusual conditions, but it can be done.  Faculty members accept this.  And faculty members never receive overtime.

BUFA is not asking, and has never asked, for their lost wages.  BUFA seeks partial compensation.  Since the Employer did not pay members during the strike, they have saved all of those unpaid wages.  It is not new money.  If Dr. Poff is implying that this money is not available for a back-to-work compensation agreement, then BUFA members, students, the public, and the Board of Governors should be asking what she intends to do with it.  This is a critical question since, by her own admission, the Employer’s unwillingness to pay BUFA members for the work we will be required to do after this strike ends is a major obstacle that is preventing a settlement.  We note that a back-to-work compensation payment is fully consistent with the back-to-work agreement implemented following the 2008 strike.

Then, as we intend to now, BUFA members fully delivered the term’s courses.  Naturally, the longer the strike lasts, the greater the savings on members’ salaries, and the greater the workload that members will be catching up on.  It seems reasonable that the back-to-work compensation should also increase as the strike lengthens.  The additional time members will commit to delivering our courses will increase, and the money which the University presumably had all along to pay members for these courses is still there.

Dr. Poff’s accusation that BUFA widened the gap between our positions has nothing to do with the collective agreement and everything to do with creating antagonism between the community and BUFA.  Meanwhile, the Employer’s last offer saw a reduction in the back-to-work payment they initially proposed.  We seriously wonder how the Employer’s negotiating strategy and Dr. Poff’s communiqué are meant to help the parties work toward an agreement.

Therein lies the second problem with the Employer’s latest tactics.  In Friday’s Brandon Sun, Grant Mitchell stated that “you can always get a settlement if both sides are willing to make a move.”  He stated that both parties had moved.  Yes, both sides can negotiate and have negotiated – without conciliation, without mediation, and without arbitration.  He then suggested that “the question is whether they [BUFA] will accept it [the Employer’s offer].”  Apparently the question of whether the Employer would accept BUFA’s offer was irrelevant.  Nevertheless, in tabling their last offer, labeled their “final offer”, the Employer has signaled their refusal to continue negotiating. 

BUFA regrets this decision, as it is an open declaration that the Employer is not interested in attempting to reach an agreement at the table, and is not interested in concluding negotiations as soon as possible so that classes may resume.  In fact, with due diligence on the part of the Employer, classes could have resumed tomorrow!

While BUFA’s proposed back to work agreement is modeled on the one implemented following the 2008 strike, the Employer has proposed an alternative back to work agreement.  In it, they wish to reserve a decision on a tentative agreement until the Board of Governors votes on it.  While BUFA is required by law (Section 69 of the Manitoba Labour Relations Act) to bring a tentative agreement to its members for a vote, nothing in the Act invites a similar process on the part of the Employer.  The issue here is that the Board of Governors has not been actively involved in the negotiating process, or even kept abreast of the developments. It raises the question of why their negotiating team is making an offer that they do not know that the Board, the Employer, will sanction. Why don't they talk to the Board first BEFORE making their final offer? How can it be final if they haven't run it by their own Board yet?

The effect of such a provision could be devastating.  If the Employer expects BUFA members to return to work while the Board votes on the tentative agreement a negative vote from the Board would result in BUFA members having returned to work voluntarily without a contract.   In that case, BUFA would immediately have to resume the strike.  If, on the other hand, BUFA members continued to strike while a Board vote was conducted, that would result in an unnecessary delay in returning the students and faculty to the classroom.  Why would the Employer’s negotiating team want to deliberately delay our return to class?  How could this possibly be good for the students?

Dr. Poff ends her communiqué by stating “it remains difficult to see how this dispute will be resolved without independent, third-party arbitration.”  It is not difficult at all.  Negotiate fairly.  Negotiate honestly.  Just negotiate.