Volume 26, No. 13 Editor: Mark Langer March, 1996.
NEGOTIATIONS CRISISAfter a number of meetings at the negotiations table, the CUASA bargaining
team had reason to believe that progress was being made. At the March 27
meeting the team had been on the point of indicating agreement in
principle to a key management proposal. However, management announced
that it had decided to apply for "conciliation". It is vital to realize
that "conciliation" is not normally seen as involvement of a third party
with the aim of getting an agreement settling outstanding issues.
Conciliation under the Labour Relations Act is the legal precursor to a
lock-out or strike situation. We have information that there are those in
management who are cynically pushing CUASA toward a strike vote because
they believe that this will split the membership.
Before describing the implications of conciliation, we should review a
chronology of events and describe what management has put on the table.
October 16 - CUASA notifies the employer that we are prepared to begin
negotiations.
January 22 - management forms a committee that finally meets with CUASA.
At the first meeting, CUASA's team is handed a letter stating formally
that management has opted out of the provision in the Collective Agreement
for binding arbitration on financial matters. This came as a considerable
surprise, since the current agreement requires the arbitrator to take into
account the employer's ability to pay. The employer puts its opening
position on the table, much of it not in contract language.
February 8 - after four months of footdragging and a month of discussion,
management's team informs CUASA that they have no mandate from the Board
of Governors to negotiate on CUASA's proposals. February 15, the employer
returns to the table with a mandate.
March 12 - the employer presents the operating budget figures. Two other
meetings follow in which we question the employer about the budget and the
assumptions behind it. Despite our request for the ancillary budget,
neither it nor the capital budget is presented.
March 27 - CUASA comes to a negotiating meeting prepared to signal its
agreement in principle to key proposals by management. The meeting begins
with the statement by management's team that the employer has decided to
proceed directly to conciliation, bypassing any intermediate steps such as
formal mediation. CUASA asks management if it is aware of the
consequences of its actions. Management's team answers yes, and the
meeting ends.
March 28 - CUASA asks the employer for a copy of the letter requesting
conciliation. The letter gives no reason for this application to the
Ministry. CUASA informs management of its intent to seek a strike
mandate.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
Conciliation is not mediation. Conciliation is the legal precursor in
Ontario to a strike or a lockout. The most likely outcome of conciliation
is that the conciliator will file a "no board report". Two weeks after a
"no board report" is accepted by the Minister of Labour, and the concerned
parties are notified, a strike or lock-out can be declared. Article 22.3
provides for the collective agreement to continue until a strike or
lock-out is declared. The employer could impose a lock-out and as at
Memorial University the employer could then dictate whatever terms and
conditions of employment that it wishes.
Vice-President and Acting President Les Copley, speaking at the March 27
Board of Governors' meeting, stated that there is nothing exceptional
about the employer's action. He cited the recent application for
conciliation made by CUPE 3815 (sessionals). What he did not observe is
that, in that case, both sides had ample discussion of their proposals and
counterproposals. More significantly, management was not seeking major
concessions from sessionals who had no current collective agreement in
place.
If a "no board report" is filed, after April 30, 1996, our present
contract will continue only until a strike or lockout is declared.
WHAT ARE MANAGEMENT'S CONDITIONS?
Management has proposed the following:
Program Redundancy. Management has not been willing to state which
programs will be made redundant. In its budget projections for 1996-97,
management has a $3 million expenditure item intended to address Program
Redundancy.
words, in excess of $7,000 will be deducted from an average annual salary.
Lifetime earnings and future pension benefits would be reduced
accordingly. This is a greater reduction in compensation than that in
agreement negotiated by any university faculty in Canada this year. It
exceeds by at least 25% the pay cut management has informed us that they
will require from other bargaining units on campus.
members of our unit (which are paid out over three years) will come out of
our salaries in one year. The more early retirements reduce our
bargaining unit (and the more the university's salary base is reduced),
the greater the reduction in our salaries.
unit without pay at the unrestricted discretion of the President.
The employer's manoeuvre means that CUASA has the following options:
capitulate to all management proposals at the bargaining table.
provide a strike mandate to our bargaining team so that it can bargain
effectively during conciliation.
Throughout, the union negotiating team was prepared to submit its own
financial proposals as soon as they were provided with proper financial
disclosure which had been repeatedly requested.
We believe that management's footdragging, their cancellation of the
Collective Agreement's provision for binding arbitration, their refusal to
pursue discussions of the vital financial issue beyond three meetings or
to enter the mediation process, and the known consequences of applying for
conciliation form a pattern of behaviour strongly suggestive that the
university had no intention of bargaining with us from the beginning.
Management assumes that any attempt to get a strike vote by our unit would
meet the same fate as the attempt made by CUPE 2323 the teaching
assistants' union. Once that failed, the employer imposed its own
conditions on that bargaining unit. They now clearly intend to impose
conditions on academic staff that are both draconian and significantly
worse than those at any other university in the country. What is most
disturbing is that the employer has decided to act in this manner just at
the point when projected enrolment for 1996-97 is down by 20%. An action
that can so obviously precipitate a strike or lockout just at the time
when potential students are deciding on their choice of university is
grossly negligent, if not irresponsible.
The CUASA Steering Committee and Council have decided that there is only
one option open to us at this time, failing our appeal to the employer to
reconsider its position in light of the probable consequences.
A meeting of all CUASA members will be held at Tuesday, April 16 at 12:30
in the Minto Theatre in order to discuss this issue of vital concern to
everyone.