The Communiqué: Bargaining Update – Obstacles and Overview

CUASA Proposal

Last Administration Response

Only allow increments of 1.0 and 0.5 in the calculation of workload credits.

This is the workload that Instructors were always supposed to have. After the ratification of the 2014-2017 collective agreement, at 0.4 workload credit value was introduced into the calculation, doing an end run around what the parties had agreed to in conciliation. This left Instructors where they are today: with a 3.5 credit teaching load (average across two years). CUASA simply wants to correct this loophole that the administration has exploited. There would be no change for those Instructors who already teach a 3.0 course load.

• Reject any reconsideration of Instructor teaching workload.

That anyone teaching 2.0 credits across the Fall and Winter terms, or 2.5 credits in an academic year be included in the CUASA bargaining unit. This is a full-time teaching load, and CUASA is the union representing full-time academic staff.

• Reject in full.

That each unit have a written process for assigning teaching assistants (TAs) that is fair and equitable. That a TA be automatically assigned to any course with more than 50 students. That foreign/second language courses have their enrolment capped for pedagogical reasons. TA help is not evenly distributed across the University. Many other faculty associations have clauses setting minimum thresholds for TA support.

• Reject any consideration of language on the assignment of TAs.

That student evaluations cannot be the sole measure of teaching effectiveness. Scores associated with racist, sexist, or any unprofessional commentary be removed from any instructor’s teaching evaluation course data. Evaluations with these characteristics are clearly not a professional assessment of members’ work.

• Reject in full. Status quo language.

That the maternity and parental leave benefit at Carleton be expanded to encompass the extended 18-month leave option recently implemented in the federal EI regulations, making it a real option for members.

• Pay out the same benefit amount spread over the longer timeline.

CUOL and other forms of digital course delivery that are not primarily ‘in-class’ be treated evenly across the university. That compensation and workload calculations follow the CUTV model, and that materials such as software, hosting fees, web space, etc., which are necessary for the course be provided by the Employer and not through member PER accounts.

• Reject contract language on CUOL, digital courses, and hybrid course formats. Propose a committee to study the issue.
  

That the unit standards approval, review, and renewal process respect the expertise and autonomy of units to decide on their own standards.

• Some movement, accompanied by an emphasis on Provostial power to impose standards on units.

That application for external funding remain in the criteria for tenure and promotion.

• That successful application for external funding become one of the standard criteria for tenure and promotion.