Volume 31, No. 7 Editor: Bob Rupert June 12, 2001.


Leave merit decisions to us, management proposes at the bargaining table.

Deans should unilaterally decide who deserves--and who doesn't deserve--a

merit increase.

On what basis?

Leave the criteria to us, management responds. And we won't have to defend

our decisions. Trust us. We know what we're doing.

Then, in the May 14th issue of This is Carleton, management announces the

latest winners of Research Achievement Awards.

One meritorious winner is-- guess who?--a director of a school.

CUASA was certified by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in 1975 to

represent a bargaining unit comprised of certain "employees" of the

university. One specifically- excluded management classification is

"directors of schools."

Article 42: Achievement Awards of the current collective agreement states

that research achievement awards "are available to faculty employees only."

Definition 16 in the same collective agreement states: "Employee

designates a person included in the bargaining unit as defined by the

Ontario Labour Relations Board..."

So despite an agreement, signed by management and the union, which

restricts research achievement awards to faculty employees, management

fails to administer the provisions of the collective agreement resulting

in an award to one of its own.

This is the same management that wants us to trust it to take over

virtual control of merit decisions.

There are ten research achievement awards annually.

Under management's proposal, there would be over 300 merit increase awards


If the margin of error was one in ten--that would add up to over 30

merit-increase errors annually. Yet this management is so confident it

could handle these merit decisions efficiently and fairly that appealing

through grievance would be barred.

If we need another reason to reject management's unaccountable merit

scheme, now we have it.

And yes. We filed the grievance on May 30.