Volume 28, No. 11                                               January, 1998



                         LAY-OFF NEGOTIATIONS FAIL



GENERAL MEETING CALLS FOR STRIKE VOTE



SUMMARY

On December 5 Senate voted to endorse senior management's proposals to

close Carleton's foreign-language and literature programs and to downsize

the undergraduate program in physics.  As called for in the collective

agreement, CUASA opened negotiations with management on the consequences

of these closures for the staff of the units affected.  These talks went

on through the holiday period and the start of the Winter term.  By the

morning of Friday, January 16, it was clear that no agreement would be

reached. 



Later that same day a special general meeting heard the association's

executive report on these and other developments related to program

closures and job security, notably President Van Loon's refusal to provide

CUASA with a clear undertaking concerning future program closures.  Bill

Graham, vice-president of CAUT, then spoke to the meeting about the

nationwide attention focused on Carleton and how the character of our

reaction will be the litmus test of top-down managerial control of

academic life in Ontario.  The meeting then turned to possible courses of

action.  It ended with unanimous approval of a resolution directing the

executive to call a strike vote on the issue of lay-offs. 



This is the first in a series of newsletters intended to inform you about

these developments in more detail. 





               THE LAY-OFF NEGOTIATIONS AND WHAT THEY REVEAL



PROCESS AND PRINCIPLE

The most frustrating aspect of the negotiations was management's refusal

to tell CUASA how many colleagues they intend to lay off or the size of

the dollar savings they want the lay-offs to generate.  Management's main

interest was the question of how academic staff will be identified for

lay-offs, whereas CUASA fought both to minimize the number of lay-offs and

to obtain improved benefits for those colleagues who might ultimately be

forced to leave. 



In essence, management wanted CUASA to agree to a streamlined lay-off

procedure.  We were willing to do so provided they accepted the

fundamental principle that colleagues should not be fired while other

colleagues in the same faculty, who want to retire early or leave the

university voluntarily, are not being allowed to do so.  We argued that

voluntary departures should always have precedence over involuntary ones,

and that lay-offs should be resorted to only if and when voluntary

departures do not reach the level of savings deemed necessary. 



CUASA's PROPOSAL

We proposed (a) that management grant requests for voluntary separation

received from within FASS and Science up to May 1, 1998; and (b) that

these voluntary departures be deducted from the number of lay-offs

management intended to impose by that date.  We deliberately restricted

this policy to severance requests coming from the two affected faculties

only (i.e. not from across the entire university).  We also capped the

number of voluntary departures from FASS and Science at the number of

assigned lay-offs, so that management would not feel that it was facing an

open-ended obligation. 



THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

It is critical to understand that CUASA's proposal gave management a

framework in which they could very likely achieve the same permanent

dollar savings they were seeking to create by laying off academic staff. 

In other words, our proposal was an alternative way of making the savings

necessary to reach a balanced budget in 1998-99.  It was also a way of

keeping Carleton's turmoil out of the national spotlight and sparing all

of us the internal bitterness that lay-offs will inevitably generate. 



In short, CUASA presented management with a responsible and coherent

proposal that addressed their concerns about balancing the budget as well

as our concerns about the decent treatment of valued colleagues. 



HOW DID MANAGEMENT REACT TO OUR PROPOSAL?

They were not interested. They categorically refused any idea of making

the same dollar savings through voluntary departures.  They insisted they

must have the lay-offs. 



So, you tell us:  Does this sound to you like a dispute over money?  Or is

this really a showdown over managerial power? 



                         THE STRIKE-VOTE RESOLUTION



Discussion on the floor of the general meeting focused on three matters: 

the situation of tenured academic staff at Carleton in the wake of

management's initiative; the particular situation of colleagues currently

in danger of lay-off; and what strategies could best counter management's

campaign.  Considerable attention went to the question of how the issue of

lay-offs will figure in upcoming negotiations for renewal of the

collective agreement.  In the end a resolution was put forward from the

floor "th at the CUASA executive be directed to call a strike vote at an

appropriate moment if further negotiations on the laying off of tenured

academic staff fail to reach a satisfactory conclusion." This resolution

was adopted unanimously. 



CUASA executive will meet immediately with the bargaining team to discuss

the incorporation of this resolution into CUASA's bargaining position. 

This is not a step to be taken lightly.  But we are taking it under the

strong impression left by the character of the discussion at the general

meeting.  That discussion showed a high degree of solidarity and

commitment over this issue among the association's membership-at-large.