Information marked as archived is provided for reference only. This archived material may not comply with Government Web Standards. Archived material has not been altered or updated since being archived.
You may have received a communication from your employer indicating that a settlement proposal was brought by the Employer to the Bargaining Team last week. The Team followed our consultation process in sharing the proposal confidentially with the Presidents of all 24 Union Locals as well as the Bargaining Advisory Committee (BAC), which is comprised of 24 full-time and 8 partial-load faculty members. The Presidents and the BAC agreed that the proposal is flawed for a number of reasons set out below. The Team is considering an appropriate response to the proposal.
The settlement proposal is actually a four-year extension of the existing 2014-2017 Collective Agreement, including an extension of all of the concessions from the last round. This proposal has serious negative implications to our members that the Team cannot accept. Here are the key features of the proposal:
- The existing moratorium on Article 2 would remain in place for another four years. In other words, the terms of this offer would not allow us to grieve for any new full-time faculty positions over the next four years. With 70% of our faculty complement already being contract faculty, the Employer’s offer would only worsen this situation; it would radically reduce the overall number of full-time faculty as retirement and other openings are not filled. This will have implications around workload for full-time faculty, few pathways to full-time employment for partial-load members who desire that, and a general weakening of our union as we continue to bleed full-time positions. Our membership has been clear that this is unacceptable;
- The salary increase being proposed is less than the rate of inflation and would result in our members earning less in real income by the end of the four-year extension than they are today;
- There are no meaningful gains for our partial load members. Precarious work would continue to be as much of a problem over the next four years as it is today;
- There is language around Bill 148 – proposed provincial legislation that is meant to ensure equal pay for equal work – that will undermine the application of that legislation once in place to the detriment of our members. Under the Employer’s proposed language, for partial-load faculty to make any gains in wages and benefits, it will come at the expense of full-time members, thereby pitting the two groups against each other; and
- None of our members’ concerns around academic freedom, intellectual property, collegial governance, or workload have been addressed.
In short, the consensus of the Team, the Local Presidents and the BAC is that this offer is unacceptable as it stands. If the Employer really believes that this is a solid offer, they can bring it directly to the membership for a final offer vote as set out under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.
We are taking this opportunity to underscore the need for a strong strike vote from our members to send the Employer a message that we are united in negotiating a new Collective Agreement that reflects a better plan which addresses the demands of our members.
The CAAT-A Bargaining Team
Meet your bargaining team
JP Hornick, Chair, Local 556
Nicole Zwiers, Vice-Chair, Local 354
Darryl Bedford, Local 110
Mona Chevalier, Local 470
Kevin MacKay, Local 240
Shawn Pentecost, Local 415
Ravi Ramkissoonsingh, Local 242