******FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE*****

OCTOBER 3, 2008

I had been appointed to act as mediator in an attempt to resolve the outstanding issues between the Brandon University (BU) and the Brandon University Faculty Association, ( BUFA).

Formal mediation commenced at 1:00PM, September 30th, 2008 and continued until 3:30PM Oct 2008. At that time it was determined that an impasse had been reached as no new proposals from either side were being submitted.

The parties were informed that I would be available to meet with the parties up to and including 9:00AM, October 2rid, 2008. As of 9:00AM, October 2', 2008 no contact was made by either party to recommence the mediation process.

I am therefore providing my view as to the respective positions and what I perceive are impediments to reaching a collective agreement. I say this with some reluctance due to the fact that some of the responses to proposals made were nothing more than the comment "not acceptable", with no alternatives being explored. Although this would certainly be an acceptable response on some of the proposals, it is my belief that on certain others it might have provided the catalyst for exploring alternatives, with the possibility of resolving some of those issues.

Labour negotiations are, in many respects, a matter of trust between the parties in the presentation of proposals during negotiations. In this case the most significant stumbling block in having the mediation process move forward has to do with what the negotiators for BUFA, rightly or wrongly, understood to be available to them under the article dealing with "Workload". Their belief is that the amount articulated to them is substantially more than what the BU negotiators understood to be the case. This has exacerbated the process from BUFA point of view and has seriously affected their trust in the negotiating process. Both BUFA and the BU are adamant in their respective understanding of the amount available under the "Workload" offer. This unresolved issue was the main recurring theme throughout the 2 days of mediation.

It is my view that meaningful face to face dialogue must occur in reaching a resolution as to what was offered and what was understood to have been offered, in the respect to the resolution of the "Workload" issue, September 8, 2008.

If this matter can be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, I believe a Collective Agreement can be achieved in a relatively short period of time.

The following are my comments on a number of specific proposals.

I do not understand the employer's reluctance to agreeing to the Article 3.10, especially worded in the-way it is, "shall make reasonable efforts".

I am of the view that BUFA's proposal 7.16 rightly causes BU legitimate concern as it proposes to penalize or fine them for the breach of that article. It would seem that the appropriate way of dealing with the issue is the development of an acceptable internal monitoring system.

BUFA's proposal on Article 20.30 seems to have merit especially in those departments where the teaching compliment can be seriously compromised.

Some consideration should be given to Article 25, as to what the impact of this proposal has on management rights.

The article on Harassment should be revisited by BUFA, as it would seem to contain some elements that already exist in the Collective Agreement and legislation.

It is difficult to make recommendations on salaries and pensions, due to the previously discussed outstanding disagreement on the amount being made available for the "Workload" issue.

I find it most appropriate to raise the issue of trust between the parties in negotiations. The issue of trust must be addressed. Even if a Collective Agreement is reached, and this issue is not resolved, it can create havoc in the way these parties deal with each other in the future.

Although this report officially brings an end to the mediation process, I am willing to continue to assist the parties in the resolution of the outstanding issues.

John Korpesho

Dated October 2, 2008.