Volume 26, No. 14 Editor: Mark Langer April, 1996. WHY A CONCILIATOR? WHY AT THIS TIME? The employer has applied to the Minister of Labour to appoint a so-called "Conciliator". Such a move on the part of either party to an existing collective agreement is, in fact, a declaration by that party that they consider the negotiations for a new agreement to have reached an impasse. In this connection, Article 22 of our current collective agreement provides that: This Collective Agreement, however, shall continue in force, including during any period of negotiation, until a new Collective Agreement is ratified by both parties, or until a strike or lock-out is declared. Our Collective Agreement in Article 34 also provides for independent third-party binding arbitration of all monetary matters. On January 22, 1996, at the outset of the very first meeting at the negotiating table, the employer gave CUASA the mandatory three-months notice terminating the agreement to submit unresolved monetary issues to binding arbitration. The appointment of a Ministry official as "conciliator" in no way constitutes the submission of unresolved matters to a form of independent third-party mediation or arbitration. To reiterate, the conciliator is an employee of the Harris government whose duty according to the Ontario Labour Relations Act is "to confer with the parties and endeavour to effect a collective agreement and to report the results of his endeavour to the Minister within 14 days of his appointment". If the conciliation officer is unable to effect a collective agreement within the time allowed, it is the usual practice for him to issue a so-called "no board report". Fourteen days from the issuance of a "no board report", the employer may lock-out the employees or they, in turn, may take legal strike action. Thus, within fourteen days of a failed conciliation effort, the employer would be in a legal position to lock-out CUASA members and, thereby, terminate the Collective Agreement. In such an event, all terms and conditions of employment, including accrued benefits, could be unilaterally altered by the employer. This unusual move by the employer occurred at a time when considerable progress on a number of non-monetary issues appeared to have been made at the table and the CUASA negotiators were waiting for management's answers to a number of vital questions concerning full financial disclosure before tabling our own salary proposals. Full disclosure of the University's true financial state was all the important, since the employer proposed to finance the entire voluntary separation payments within an extremely short period of time through major rollbacks in compensation for the remaining colleagues. In other words, those of us who stay at Carleton following an approximately ten percent reduction of academic staff (since July 1, 1995), would be expected to do much of the work of those who have left, as well as being asked to finance their departure be means of a salary cut. If the management in fact believes that their financial position is such as to call for a rollback in compensation, they surely could, by fully opening their books, convince an independent third-party arbitrator of their genuine inability to pay. The current collective agreement in Article 34.3(b) specifies "the employer's ability to pay" as one of the issues relevant to the determination of the arbitrator's award. Indeed, the Harris government has, by legislation, required all public sector arbitrators to take ability to pay into account in their awards. Why then is the Carleton University administration afraid of independent arbitration? Why have they chosen to seek the appointment of a "conciliator", which is but the first step to a lock-out/strike type confrontation? Why not continue negotiating in good faith on the basis of full financial disclosure? Under the circumstances, the only way we can continue to press for a fair agreement which will assure the continued harmonious operation of our University, is to counter this move by the employer towards a lock-out and termination of the collective agreement, is by providing our negotiating team with the strongest possible unequivocal support to bargain effectively during conciliation. Housing Notices CUASA provides a list of housing notices as a service to its members. Notices must be submitted to the CUASA office in writing, either by mail, by fax or by email. Housing notices will not be accepted over the phone. CUASA cannot guarantee the placement of notices. OTTAWA SOUTH: Bright Sunny, 2 bedroom, lower duplex, in friendly, central, neighbourhood. Short walk to Carleton University, and Glebe shopping, 3 blocks to Canal. Hardwood throughout, air conditioning, English garden and beautiful trees. Parking heat and air included. Non-smoker please. $995. 613-225-2689 (H), 613- 520-2600 ext. 2686, or email tina_daniels@carleton.ca. SABBATICAL RENTAL: Four Bedrooms plus large study. Thirty minutes walk from Carleton; direct bus to the university of Ottawa. Available September 1, $1500/month furnished; $1300/month unfurnished. (613) 736-9683 (home); (613) 520-2600 ext 2164 (office). SABBATICAL LEASE: Furnished three bedroom house near Ottawa U. Large family room and study. Easy commute by bike or car to Carleton. Walk to downtown. Available August 1 for one or two years. $1,100 per month plus utilities. (613) 232-4709 or dcray@business.carleton.ca. OVERLOOKING PARK/CANAL: 72 Greenfield Ave. Share with one person. Quiet modern townhome. Includes private third floor with 2 large rooms, 1 bath, skylight. 5 minute walk to Ottawa University. $675/mp. (incl. parking, utilities). Available April 1, 1996. 991-8203 (day), 230-6905 (eve.). OUT OF COUNTRY: South France furnished farmhouse, 5 Bdrm, 2 baths. Rent short or long term. Waterfront furnished studio on Mediterranean Sea. Tel: 33 68 69 1501. FOR RENT: Mid-May to late August. Large, tastefully renovated house with many special features, in Glebe, near Canal. No smokers, pets. Duration and terms negotiable. Can also include chalet, etc. (613) 236-3307.