Volume 25, No. 16 Editor: Bob Rupert June, 1995. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Instructors and Collegiality Recently a CUASA Instructor member asked about the list of those eligible to vote for the academic' representative to the Board of Governors and the exclusion of Instructors. This questions relates to the underlying issue of collegiality for Instructor employees. The following information was circulated directly to CUASA's Instructors and is reprised below for the entire membership. In 1975, when CUASA was certified as the bargaining agent for academic staff, there were a number of employees designated part-time teachers who were actually teaching a full workload. CUASA sought to bring these people into the bargaining unit. As they were not required to do research the employer would not agree to their being accorded faculty status and so a new status was created. Unfortunately, no one looked at the category of Instructor employee in terms of the Carleton University Act at the time. The Act only includes reference to faculty and librarians within it and so Instructors have been denied the forms of collegiality contained in the Act. Those forms are: membership of faculty board, Senate, and now election to BOG. CUASA has been fighting for many years to include Instructors as full colleagues at Carleton. Our efforts have not had any success. Because the Act, which we do not have the power to change, only lists Lecturers, Assistant, Associate and Professors, CUASA decided to ask for a name change from Instructor I, II, III to Lecturer I, II, III and the existing Lecturers to Senior Lecturers to get around the problem of the language of the Act. The collegiality issue, in this guise, was raised by CUASA at the Joint Committee to Administer the Agreement initially on April 14, 1994. At the May meeting the Vice-President (Academic) reported that there has been informal discussion among the Deans but there was nothing to report. In June, the employer reported that "the Committee of Deans had discussed this matter and decided not to recommend any change". Following extensive discussion CUASA was asked to prepare a written position and rationale for the Vice-President (Academic) to take to the Deans. At the next meeting (September) CUASA presented its written rationale to management. CUASA was told in October that "the matter is on the agenda for the Committee of Deans, but it has not yet been discussed". In November, the Deans had considered the matter and a written response was forthcoming. At the March 7, 1995 meeting CUASA requested that the written response be provided as soon as possible. CUASA received a memo, dated March 30, 1995, from the Vice-President (Academic) stating that the Deans would not agree to enfranchise Instructor employees with full collegiality for the following reasons: "Since the date of certification, the parties to the Collective Agreement have exercised care to maintain the distinctiveness of the three categories of employees that comprise the bargaining unit represented by CUASA. The distinctions occur in all aspects of employment from workload through rights and responsibilities to career decisions and compensation. The change in designations proposed by the union would introduce ambiguity and result in a loss of distinction between the category of instructor employees on the one hand and faculty employees on the other. Indeed, it would imply that the three instructor ranks are the first three levels in a seven level faculty hierarchy, from Lecturer I through to Full Professor, and that what we refer to as transfer from one category to another is actually promotion or demotion. I recall that the union has always avoided such a misinterpretation of transfer quite deliberately and has chided the employer representatives when they have been less fastidious in their use of language. In any case, it is our view that such loss of distinction would be inimical to the interests of the University." During the discussions at JCAA, Dean Adam stated that he believed that providing full collegial rights to Instructor employees might "change the culture of some departments" which is probably easier to grasp than the previous quotation. It now seems that the only way to enfranchise Instructor employees as full colleagues at Carleton University is by seeking a change to the Carleton University Act in the Ontario Legislature. Until that happens, Instructor employees will continue to be excluded from faculty boards, Senate and BOG elections. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CUASA Scholarship Winner The Director of Student Awards, Carol Fleck, has informed our office that the 1995 CUASA Scholarship valued at $1500, has been awared to Mr. Dat Doan. Mr. Doan, a Computer Systems Engineering student, completed the second year of this program with an 11.80 GPA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Invitation "In working toward a sensible University policy on human rights Carleton has employed two consultants to help canvass opinion and viewpoint concerning existing and future human rights practices. The consultants, Shelagh Day and Gwen Brodsky, are eager to hear your views on the adequacy of existing policy and practice, evident gaps in such policy/practice, and practices for the establishment of human rights guidelines which might apply to you particularly. Please send your written views (by letter or e-mail) to Shelagh Day or Gwen Brodsky c/o Gail Stanton, 606D Robertson Hall. They are eager to hear the viewpoint of everyone in the Carleton community, including those of diverse race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, national origin, creed, sex, marital status, family status, political affiliation or belief, sexual orientation, or handicap as defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CUASA will be 20 years old June 18, 1995 Celebrations will be held in our new offices in September 1995