|
BUFA NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN #12 September 23, 2008 State of NegotiationsFace-to-face negotiations were suspended yesterday, when the Employer announced that it was applying for Conciliation, claiming that no further progress could be made at the table. Under this process, the Provincial Minister of Labour appoints a Conciliator who meets separately with the parties, and seeks -- through 'shuttle diplomacy' - to achieve a resolution of outstanding issues. The process was requested by the Employer in each of the past 4 rounds of negotiations. Conciliation resulted tentative agreement in 2002, but was unsuccessful in 1998 and 2005. Bargaining Session SummariesThere have been two bargaining sessions since BUFA's general information meeting: September 17, and September 22.Below is a brief summary of these sessions. At the beginning of these sessions, the following Articles of the Collective Agreement were outstanding (B = opened by BUFA; E = opened by the Employer). Definitions (B, E) September 17, 2008At the beginning of this relatively brief (1-hour) session, BUFA made a presentation on Article 31 (Harassment), which the Employer has refused to discuss. Your negotiators advised that the thrust of BUFA's proposal was to eliminate the Employer's capacity to use the BOG's 'Happy Workplace Policy' to harass and discipline BUFA members. It seeks to prevent this by explicitly excluding 'criticism of the University', the taking of a 'public stand on controversial issues', and actions by BUFA executive members pursuant to their responsibilities, as triggering offenses, and by explicitly providing for union representation throughout the complaint investigative process. (In the last round of negotiations in 2005, the Employer attempted an explicit attack on these components of Academic Freedom through a proposed 'Discipline' article, which was eventually withdrawn). The Employer offered no comment on BUFA's presentation, and the discussion shifted to BUFA's counterproposals on the selection processes for CIS coaches and the Campus Recreation Director. The Employer took these proposals under consideration. September 22, 2008At the beginning of this session, BUFA provided the Employer with a copy of the press release announcing the outcome of the strike vote (84% positive). Your negotiators then tabled a series of language proposals intended bring closure to a number of articles. BUFA tabled and discussed final counter proposals on the CIS Coaches (to which the Employer agreed in principle), Campus Recreation Director (taken under advisement), and FNAC Director selection/credit hour release (agreement in principle). BUFA withdrew its counterproposal on 20.17.2 and 20.32 and modified the proposal on 20.30 (sabbatical replacement), in the hopes of signing off an Article 20. However, the Employer indicated rejection of the requirement to provide replacements for year-long sabbatical leaves. BUFA proposed an MOU on the University Pension Plans Exemption Regulations issue, which the Employer would not discuss. BUFA then provided a lengthy point-by-point response to the Employer's counterproposal on workload in relation to the salary issue. Particular attention was paid to year 1 of the contract, in which there is no workload reduction, no consideration of the pension issue, no consideration of the salary grid adjustment issue, with only a 2.5% scale increase plus an increment. This works out to an overall monetary increase of about 5%, while the Employer has at 11% at its disposal. In years 2 and 3, when the workload changes for academic members takes effect, the employer is offering 2% scale increases with an increment (for a monetary package of less than 5%), no salary grid adjustment, and nothing on pensions. In addition, there is no commitment to replace the loss in teaching power implied by the workload reduction. In effect, BUFA is being asked to withdraw all of its workload and salary/pension proposals, in order to 'pay' for the workload reduction. BUFA rejected the Employer's proposal. After a break, your negotiators requested that the Employer respond to BUFA proposal on Article 31 (Harassment) and to the pension issue, as a condition precedent for any further proposal modifications by BUFA. Their response was brief. With respect to Article 31, the Employer stated that BUFA's proposal was a non-starter and that it represented an attempt by BUFA to 'water-down' the Happy Workplace Policy as it applied to BUFA Members, so that BUFA members could escape "accountability." (Since the modifications to the trigger of the Happy Workplace Policy in BUFA's proposal involve criticism of the university, public stands on controversial issues, and the activities of the BUFA executive (see above), the Employer's intention in respect of this policy seem clear.) The Employer's response to the Pension proposal was simply that it was a budget issue. The underlying principles did not seem to concern them. The Employer then made some vague references to Final Offer Selection, which BUFA rejected. The Employer then announced that it was seeking Conciliation. Further negotiation sessions were suspended. Thus, at the end of this session, the following Articles of the Collective Agreement were outstanding (B = opened by BUFA; E = opened by the Employer). Definitions (B, E) |
|
|
|