BUFA Member: I understand that "harassment" has become an issue in this round of negotiations. What's that all about?

Answer: On September 1, 2008, the Employer instituted its "Respectful Environment Policy". Although BUFA had a chance to give input about this policy, BUFA's suggestions were largely ignored. Also, certain procedures in the new policy violate what has been in the Collective Agreement about sexual harassment (Article 31) for many years.

BUFA Member: But we desperately need a policy on general harassment!

Answer: Of course we do! That's why BUFA has tabled a proposal to expand the present Article on Sexual Harassment to include all types of harassment. BUFA wants to enshrine it and the rights of members under it in the Collective Agreement, so that it is guaranteed that it will be applied to both BUFA members and members of the Administration equally.

BUFA Member: What has been the reaction of the Administration to the BUFA proposal?

Answer: The Administration has proposed to fix the inconsistencies of their Respectful Environment Policy with the Collective Agreement by deleting the Sexual Harassment Article from the Collective Agreement.

BUFA Member: So BUFA wants to expand what's in the Collective Agreement to include all types of harassment, and the Employer wants to delete what's already there?

Answer: That's right.

BUFA Member: What's the Employer's problem with BUFA's proposal?

Answer: We're not sure. The Employer's comments have been limited to a reiteration of their written response, "Delete the entire article as it is insufficient to satisfy the requirements under legislation."

BUFA Member: But if that's true...

Answer: If. BUFA's proposal was written with the assistance of BUFA's lawyers. They have been involved with this from the start, examining the Respectful Environment Policy and providing advice on its shortcomings and the legislation surrounding the whole issue of harassment. We've never gotten any further elucidation from the Employer. They just repeat the same old mantra.

BUFA Member: You've mentioned that there are some procedures in the Respectful Environment Policy which are at odds with the Collective Agreement. What specifically?

Answer: Article 31.5 of the Collective Agreement states that "Complaints of sexual harassment shall be directed to the Officer, as defined by University policy. The Officer shall investigate the complaint and mediate." This investigative process of the "Conflict Resolution Advisor" (CRA) is absent in the Respectful Environment Policy.

In addition, the Collective Agreement states that "In the event the complaint is not settled, the Officer will make recommendations to all the Parties involved."

Since, in the Respectful Environment Policy, the CRA does not investigate, he/she is not in a position to make recommendations to anyone (complainant, respondent, BUFA or the President).

In a nutshell, BUFA is afraid that allegations of a relatively trivial or frivolous nature can be forced to a full scale investigation by an outside investigator.

BUFA Member: That would mean that the Respectful Environment Policy could be used as a weapon.

Answer: That's one of the things that we're afraid of. That's what killed the old harassment policy that existed several years ago. If things are enshrined in the Collective Agreement, they can't just disappear by Administrative fiat.

BUFA Member: What are some of the other problems that BUFA has with the Respectful Environment Policy?

Answer: Two of the main things have to do with the whole idea of academic freedom, and the definition of the word "respectful".

BUFA Member: How is this whole issue related to academic freedom?

Answer: Although lip service has been given to academic freedom in the revised policy (buried in section 3.6 d), it does not receive the attention that it deserves. BUFA suggested that the following sentence be added to the Policy.

"In administering this Policy, Conflict Resolution Committee members, the Conflict Resolution Advisors and Investigators, like all other officers of the University, are obliged to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression and association."

The Employer ignored this input.

BUFA Member: What's the problem with the word, "respectful"?

Answer: Part of the problem is that no two people will agree on what it means, but the real problem is in the legal definition. According to BUFA lawyers, if the Respectful Environment Policy is really aimed at intentional harm caused by disrespectful behaviour such as name-calling or bullying of some description - then the policy should avoid over-broad words such as 'respect' and stick to the more well-defined word "bullying".

BUFA Member: Anything else that BUFA is concerned about?

Answer: The Respectful Environment Policy is written in such a way that it has not been anticipated that members of the Conflict Resolution Committee, or the Conflict Resolution Advisors or Administrators up to and including the President could ever be accused of being disrespectful, let alone "bullying". However, it is BUFA's experience that much of the disrespect, bullying, and general anxiety felt by our members is emanating from the Administration. Specific procedures should be in place to deal with administrators under this policy. It cannot be a policy only to control students, faculty and staff.

BUFA Member: Amen to that. Anything else?

Answer: BUFA is concerned about the powers of the President under the Respectful Environment Policy. Article 3.4.3 of the policy states that the President can determine whether an investigation be conducted even in the absence of a formal complaint. This gives too much power to the President, without any operating guidelines. Then, there is the whole problem of the nature of the disciplinary action which the President may believe that he is empowered to impose in the name of the Policy.

BUFA Member: Sounds like BUFA has quite a few concerns. Did BUFA ever express them to the Employer before the Policy was passed by the Board of Governors?

Answer: Yes, twice. In writing. But most of BUFA's input was ignored. At least during collective bargaining they're supposed to pay attention.

BUFA Member: Is this whole thing just about the opinion of a few members of the BUFA Executive?

Answer: No. BUFA's response to the Respectful Environment Policy was put together with substantial input from both CAUT and BUFA's lawyers. In fact, most of the input was theirs, and BUFA just wove their responses together into one document. BUFA's negotiations proposal was also put together with the assistance of our legal counsel.

BUFA Member: This is all quite a lot to take in. Could you summarize the whole issue for me?

Answer: It is BUFA's position that the Respectful Environment Policy is a seriously flawed, unilaterally imposed policy. BUFA believes that for any policy to really work, that it must be embraced by all affected Parties. BUFA believes that for the protection of its members that procedures for dealing with all types of harassment should be enshrined in and protected by the Collective Agreement. BUFA believes that the present protection against sexual harassment should stay in the Collective Agreement. BUFA further believes that any means of dealing with harassment should apply equally to University Administrators and Faculty alike.

BUFA Member: Well, thanks for this. Maybe I'll finally get around to reading BUFA's response to the Respectful Environment Policy.

Answer: Any time. Happy to defuzzify the mudification.