Bargaining Update # 1 2006

28 Feb 07 – Seven and a half months doesn’t mean a hell of a lot; in the grander scheme of things, in the context of thirty years of negotiating at York University or decades of labour history, seven and a half months doesn’t mean a thing. But given that it gave us a good raise, a way for those units at 3.0 FCEs to come down to a teaching load maximum of 2.5, additional credits for graduate teaching, and a slew of small gains on which the next Bargaining Team can build, “that’s enough for me to be living like a king,” * and seven and a half months doesn’t seem like such a very long time after all.

When I started writing these Bargaining Updates, I decided to make a point of trying to give YUFA members (and anyone else reading us online) a sense of what was really involved serving on a Bargaining Team as well as reporting on progress. I thought I’d end with a final update that conveyed a sense of the last weeks of negotiations. As has always been the case, this is my report, as the Communications Officer.

We were still pretty much the same team we’d started with back on 22 June 2006, but people who back then were just fellow YUFA members had become friends we were closer to and spent more time with than almost anyone else in our lives. We knew each others’ habits and jokes and expressions and preferences in food and drink and pretty much what we’d wear each day. We finished each others’ sentences and looked out for each other and took care to be respectful when we argued.

We had early on established that a good sense of humour was going to see us through a lot, and to our delight we found that ours were already pretty much in tune. It was kind humour; no one was ever the object of unpleasantness, although as the months wore on, there was some dark humour about our endless task. We shared a sense of humour occasionally with “the other side” too; it moves things along, and besides, it just can’t be helped when you’ve got a room full of verbally clever people. Like the day we realized that back in June we had talked about 12 December when the two separate sections of Article 14 would no longer be needed as if it were a date far away in the future and lo and behold! here it was coming up in five days and we all just gaped across the table at each other in stunned wonder at how very long we’d been together. I meet a lot of YUFA members who automatically blame the Employer for the length of time that negotiations took, but sometimes in negotiations, things just take time. This time it took time, on both sides.

Then there was the long long month in towards conciliation, where our members really shone and were there when we needed them. We met Myrna Mann, the conciliator sent by the Ministry of Labour, who joined us for the last several weeks and did a good job of facilitating our settlement. About her cigarettes, well, it’s a good story and if you ask Mary Kandiuk or me, we’ll probably tell you! Myrna’s job isn’t one I envy. She travels all over, working with difficult labour situations, staying up all hours of the night in strange places, shuttling between both sides in their separate rooms, working to bring them together, not an easy job, and she is to be congratulated on her work here. I never got to say ‘Thank You’, so maybe she will read this and find the words here.

The last week was exciting, if exhausting. We met for three 14-hour days, followed by a 21-hour overnight session culminating in the early morning settlement on 13 January. We had heard tales of teams that met in hotels and early on in the process had jokingly insisted that when our time came if it came to that, we wanted a spa, not a hotel. Well, the joke was on us, because we spent those four long nights in the East Office Building!

One of the real lessons of any negotiation is that you have to trust your Bargaining Team and not try to second-guess them at every critical juncture. We felt this trust absolutely from YUFA Executive and from most of our members. There were a few people who wished that we might have come back to the membership to “ask permission” for some things, but you have to know, and remember it well for the next round, that just isn’t how negotiations are done – certainly not as described in our Constitution and By-laws. As for a strike / lockout, while it is always a possibility, by those last four days, both sides knew we were close enough that there was not going to be a strike or lockout, that we were “too close to lose it now” and that what we had to do was keep working until we worked it out. At this point, the Chief Negotiators of both sides were meeting, each with a Second, along with the conciliator, leaving the teams behind in our little rooms, gnawing on our fingernails until our Chief Negotiator came back to tell us, at 2:30 a.m., at 3:15, at 4:30, where we were at that point, and where we thought we were headed. Someone asked me a fascinating question just a few days ago: “How do you know when you’ve got a settlement?” My answer was simple, “When your Chief Negotiator comes back into the room beaming and says, ‘We’ve got a settlement!’” but the larger answer will have to be found by serving as a Chief Negotiator yourself; only they will ever know that mystery. It was an exciting night!

Also important to remember is that labour negotiations are never about getting everything you asked for; there are bound to be some disappointments. But what is crucial to remember, during negotiations, while voting to ratify, and while deciding whether to feel good about a reached settlement, is that each Collective Agreement sets the stage for the next one. Also important to remember about this particular negotiation is that we rewrote virtually the entirety of Article 14 in the face of the end of mandatory retirement. This was a huge task.

Good negotiating is also about keeping decent relations with the other side. When I first heard, that Saturday morning, that “the other side” thought the current Collective Agreement was a good deal, my tired little brain thought, “Uh oh, what did we do wrong?!” But then I realized that no, we’d done it right. A settlement that leaves one side bitter and angry is not a good settlement, no matter which side wins. We all have to work together, and we will have to sit down at the negotiating table less than three years from now and do it all over again, so it’s better to get all we can as a union, but to get it fairly and in a way that keeps the Employer reasonably happy as well.

There are some personal advantages to having worked on the Bargaining Team. You get to know a good deal of your Collective Agreement inside out. You get to know your rights as a unionized worker, and to understand first hand how all those rights were achieved.

I was impressed with my experience of working across the table from the Employer. It was as nice a process as anything I have experienced in my quarter century of working at York University. The Employer was ever and consistently polite, courteous, considerate, occasionally warm and genuine, sometimes even humourous, even while disagreeing, sometimes strongly, on matters of great importance. We held our different grounds without ever coming to unpleasant relations. In a year when we were hearing about hard bargaining across the country, with tables being banged upon and, shouting matches heard down hallways, I felt that both sides at York conducted themselves extremely well in a very lengthy process dealing with critically important issues.

Having served these last seven and half months as both your Communications Officer and a member of your Bargaining Team, I hope you will be happy with your new Collective Agreement, and above all, I urge you to start NOW to work on the Workload Committee that will ensure your teaching workload. YUFA will be providing help with this, along with the Employer.

10 Jan 07 – It’s been like trudging through knee-deep snow all day and evening where “every tenth step or so (the average toted as you walk) drops you through the teasing crust in snow up to your knees.”* I came home a little earlier last night, close to midnight, had time for a quick look at my e-mail, found a note on the Stewards’ List from an old buddy from the 1997 picket lines commenting on the quietness of the YUFA Website, and was reminded that I had planned to draft a Bargaining Update that day.

I know you’ve all been there, at the end of a too-long day reading the last pages of a doctoral student’s thesis before the oral defence, getting a report ready to leave on a boss’s desk, when you suddenly realize you haven’t called your colleague with whom you’re writing the paper with the looming deadline or your sick Mom in hospital and now it’s just too late and anyway you’re just too tired. But my friend’s note reminded me that YUFA members need to know where we are in bargaining even if it’s just to say that we’re making progress.

There is serious hard work going on to reach a settlement, with the help of the conciliator. And significant progress is being made. The Bargaining Team met with the Employer on 8 and 9 January and will meet again on 11 and 12 January. There is not a lot to officially report because everything is being done right now “without prejudice,” a useful device which allows each side to propose ideas that may move us closer to settlement but without the risk of a formal tabled proposal. We will keep you posted as soon as we have anything more definite to report.

From *Walking Home to Mayfair, January 1928” in John Unrau’s Iced Water

21 Dec 06 – The Bargaining Team spent four long days of meetings with the Conciliation Officer and the Employer on December 15, 18, 19 and 20. While there was movement on several important issues, the Team concluded that no further progress appeared possible. The parties were not moving rapidly towards a settlement that adequately addressed its most significant proposals and furthermore did not address many of its remaining outstanding proposals. Therefore the Bargaining Team recommended to the YUFA Executive that the Association request a No Board report. The Executive has approved that request and the report that conciliation has failed will be issued on January 12, 2007. Although we will be in a strike or lock-out position on January 29, 2007, this does not mean that there will be a strike. The parties have agreed to continue talks in mediation and meetings are scheduled on January 8 and 9 and, tentatively, throughout January. We expect further progress to be made.

The Team will be reviewing this stage of bargaining with the YUFA Executive and Stewards’ Council in early January and with the membership at the General Membership Meeting scheduled for January 16, at 3:30 in Accolade East 102. At that meeting the Team will report on progress in negotiations and address members’ questions and concerns. In the meantime we will keep you apprised of any major developments.

8 Dec 06 – The Conciliation Officer met with both parties on 7 December and has another meeting scheduled for 15 December. Meanwhile, the Bargaining Team will continue meeting with the Employer to work together toward a settlement.

24 Nov 06 – There has been no significant movement on any of the Association’s key proposals. Therefore, the Bargaining Team has followed the recommendation of the YUFA membership at the 10 November 2006 AGM and requested that YUFA Executive file for conciliation. Executive has approved the motion to request the appointment of a conciliation officer from the Ministry of Labour, and the steps to set that process in motion have been taken. Both sides have expressed the hope that the conciliation process will move the parties toward a settlement. However, although the Team offered the Employer the opportunity to accelerate the process by applying jointly for conciliation, they declined to do so.

YUFA is not the only Ontario Faculty Association bringing in third party assistance in reaching overdue settlements. Carleton University Academic Staff Association narrowly avoided a strike, reaching agreement at 4:30 on the morning of its strike deadline, with the help of a conciliator. Brock University Faculty Association has one more day of mediation remaining before its strike deadline of 5 December.

Slow negotiation and hard bargaining continue to be the pattern with employers, particularly in Ontario, where only two universities have settled, including Algoma whose salary level is set by a formula, and Carleton where the settlement included an across-the-board raise in a three year contract of 4% / 4% / 4.5%, plus a $400 lump sum in each year. Issues on tables across the province are nearly identical to those that concern YUFA: Salary, Workload / Faculty Complement, Benefits / Research Funds, Retirement, and many issues on governance and decision-making. Our particular issues also include Equity, Affirmative Action, and fair treatment for SRCs.

The Bargaining Team has told the Employer that they are willing to continue talking at the table while conciliation is being arranged. The Employer has agreed and we have set future meeting dates.

17 Nov 06 – Meetings with the Employer continued this week with discussion of several major issues, including Workload and Retirement. In the spirit of the motion from the floor of the AGM, the Bargaining Team is working toward significant movement and will be considering whether to recommend to the YUFA Executive a request for conciliation.

· Workload agreement on a process to lower teaching load below 2.5 credits (FCEs). This agreement stresses “Carleton’s objective to be a top tier research intensive university.”

· Professional Expense Reimbursement (PER) raised to $1200 by year three of the contract.

· There was no apparent change to their Career Development Increment (CDI, their equivalent to our Progress-through-the-Ranks). Their employer’s threat to make denial of the CDI the default case (unless specifically applied for) was removed from the table.

6 Nov 06 – This longer update will bring YUFA members up to date with where YUFA stands in negotiations with the Employer, with some background of where other universities also stand, before the discussion of bargaining at the Annual General Membership Meeting on Friday 10 November.

YUFA first sat down with the Employer on 18 May 2006, and began bargaining in earnest on 22 June. The Team has met usually three times per week since then, for four and one half months, with the exception of a three week hiatus in August. Some of these were meetings with the Employer and some were Team caucuses. Some of the caucus meetings were with various YUFA constituencies (e.g.,: SRCs, Equity Officers, 2006 Retirement Cohort), as guests invited to help the Team better understand proposals related to specific groups. Most meetings have been intense, covering large volumes of material. Some of the tasks, notably the complete rewriting of Article 14, have been sheer slogging hard work with infinite and convoluted detail where every word is crucial. Your Bargaining Team is not exhausted, but they have been performing exhausting work. Part of what keeps them going is their obvious care for their Association and the task with which they have been charged, and their mutual sense of humour.

YUFA came to the table with over 90 proposals approved by the membership but not prioritized. So far the Team has largely held to most of these positions. The Employer has rejected most of the proposals, claiming YUFA’s package is highly overpriced. They delayed for months bringing their economic proposals to the table, but, significantly in the greater picture of university negotiations (see below), they asked for no take-backs. It appears to the Bargaining Team that the Employer wants a slow, incremental pace, and indeed slow negotiations are the pattern elsewhere.

The Association has not moved on key issues; we have tried to move negotiations forward by modifying our compensation proposals and reducing proposed increases in research funds, administrative stipends and benefits improvements.

There has been tentative agreement on some minor areas including such things as agreeing on the names of the Faculties at York and calendar dates, removing one arbitrator from the list of possible arbitrators, agreeing on titles of appointment categories (Special Visiting Professor becomes Visiting Professor), and keeping the word “advocate” in Appendix Q. While these may seem deleteriously trivial to someone reading this list without having been at the table, each of these items took a fair amount of time to negotiate.

As reported in Update #7, the Employer increased its across-the-board salary increase offer to 2% in the first year, 2% in the second year, and 2.25% in the third year of a proposed three year contract, but still with no increase in either Progress-Through-the-Ranks (PTR) or Professional Expense Reimbursement (PER). The Association modified its compensation proposals from 5% to 4% in the first and subsequent years of a new contract, along with maintaining our proposed increase in PTR and modifying an increase to PER to $1600. The Team thinks this is extremely reasonable given cost of living and catch-up to our comparators, such as the University of Toronto, in the same city. Note that the proposed language is “in first and subsequent years.” The Team will need to be convinced of a contract that includes subsequent years.

NOTE: The first year raise as currently proposed by the Employer is NOT retroactive to 01 May 2006, as suggested in Bargaining Update #3, but was proposed in the few days after that update was posted, to be effective upon ratification. The Team will, of course, be negotiating for retroactive increases.

The Employer has responded to only one of our benefits proposals by proposing an increase in Vision Care entitlement to $400 from $375 (eyeglasses). The Association’s proposal was to increase to $450 with another $50 in each subsequent year. The Team is focusing on benefits improvements in vision care, orthodontics, hearing aids, and eye exams by ophthalmologists.

The Association’s proposal is to achieve parity between active and retired members with respect to benefits. The Employer has costed this as extremely expensive. They have offered to improve the dental maximum for retired faculty and librarians to $1250 from $1000.

The Employer has responded to the Team’s proposal to consolidate funds, but in a slightly different way. The Employer has proposed this fund be allocated $900,000, an increase with a focus on providing more than 40 half course releases related to research. The Team is reviewing the terms and criteria of this re-organized fund. They also will continue to propose increases in the Junior Faculty / Librarian Fund and the Leave Fellowship Fund for sabbaticants.

The Association has an important demand on the table for an anomalies exercise disbursing $500,000 per year. The terms still need to be worked out, but one focus will be on salary compression, compared to provincial averages, for mid-career members hired with the low starting salaries and wage and PTR freezes of the 1990s.

The Employer wants to keep the Merit Pay competition at the status quo but the Association wants to direct this $725,000 to our other important priorities, because Merit Pay is given at the Employer’s discretion.

The Employer has not engaged with YUFA on the idea of a 2.0 FCE teaching course load maximum across the University. They have argued briefly that this needs to be dealt with at a unit level and not at the University level. The Association has modified its proposal to phase in the 2.0 FCE limit in the third year of a possible three year contract, with the second year set at a 2.5 FCE maximum, along with complementary changes in Appendix O.

The Employer has, in their view, begun to recognize the importance of workload by revitalizing the Teaching Load and Class Size Committee, renaming it as the Teaching Load and Research Committee (Articles 18.13 and 18.14), focused on developing initiatives related to research time and productivity. Although committees have not always been effective and thus are not often seen as a good way to solve problems at York, the Bargaining Team is reviewing this proposal. The Team has emphatically told the Employer that they need a fuller response to the membership’s concerns about workload. The Team also continues to press the Employer on other proposals concerning workload and restructuring.

The Employer continues to refuse to reinstate the 2006 Cohort. There may, however, be agreement that those on irrevocable reduced load due to low pensions will have the choice of returning to full-time status. The two sides have exchanged a number of proposals on a new post-mandatory retirement Article 14, which is very complicated and not yet concluded. The parties have agreed that those who continue working full-time past the age of 65 will continue to have the same benefits (with the possible exception of Long Term Disability) and compensation increments as those under 65. The new Article 14 will most likely include financial compensation to retired faculty to supervise graduate students. It also will probably include reduced post-retirement teaching; this is not surprising in the new era of voluntary retirement. Regarding retirement incentives, the Employer proposes the status quo, while the Association is seeking an enriched package; there has been no movement here.

Each side is proposing a phase-out to retirement with a reduced amount of teaching/librarian appointments and a guarantee to the Employer of a set date of retirement. There has been some agreement on the structure of how this would happen, but the Association insists there must be a generous allowance to accompany what would be a surrendering of Labour’s newly won right to continue to work past 65, while the Employer insists that they will give no allowance for any such guarantee of a retirement date. The team stands firm that there will be no agreement to a phase-out to retirement without a monetary incentive.

The two sides have discussed providing post-retirement benefits to SRCs. The Association has modified its proposal to providing two additional five-year contracts, which would bring all SRCs to a pensionable age. YUFA is waiting for a fuller response from the Employer.

The Employer has expressed a fundamental disagreement with the inclusion of a fifth Affirmative Action group (members of sexual and gender minorities) and with a 30% target for visible minorities and aboriginals. The parties are coming to an agreement on a way to bring together the Affirmative Action Officer and each hiring committee.

There are a number of proposals specific to librarians that the Team continues to push. They have achieved language that allows new library hires to obtain sabbatical credit for past work on a par with new faculty hires, correcting an historic inequity.

The Employer will not agree to pay the heavy penalty we propose, and categorically denies that the May 2003 letter was in any way a guarantee of faculty complement. The two sides have both said that they may have to agree to disagree on this issue. The Association has proposed withdrawing this proposal in return for a clause ensuring net new hirings over the length of the new Collective Agreement.

Slow negotiation and hard bargaining is the pattern in Ontario and across the country. There is money from governments for universities for the first time in many years, and it seems that most employers are trying to make sure that they get the money as opposed to sharing it with faculty. Outside of Ontario there are three potential strikes: at the University of Saskatchewan where the Union has been bargaining for fifteen months and talks are stalled, at Bishop’s University in Quebec, and at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia.

In Ontario, nine universities have been negotiating contracts that ran out in the spring; only one has settled and that is Algoma University College, which settled for an across-the-board salary raise for a three year contract of 2.5%, 3%, 4%. In many other cases, employers are aggressive, many proposing take-backs and extremely low salary increases.

Brock University Faculty Association is headed for conciliation. The Union is asking for 4.8% in salary, a graduate supervision credit to improve a 2.0 FCE course load maximum achieved in the last bargaining round, and the introduction of benefits for retirees. At Brock, 88% voted to approve a strike if necessary.

The University of Western Ontario Faculty Association is at an impasse with a very aggressive employer, who has requested conciliation. The Association has proposed 12.5% in the first year, including salary, Progress-Through-the-Ranks, and catch-up, with no salary increase in the second year of a two-year term.

At Carleton University, which now has a strike deadline of 15 November, the Employer originally proposed removing sabbaticals as a right and replacing the process with one where a sabbatical had to be applied for; they are also proposing to remove the tenure and promotion process from the Collective Agreement. The Association is also making ambitious demands; they have reduced their original demand for a 20% raise to 8.5%. Carleton had a 96% strike vote.

Conciliation may be requested by either side if there is an impasse or lack of progress. A conciliator is appointed by the Ministry of Labour and moves back and forth between the two sides, insisting that each moderate its demands to see if agreement can be reached. If the two sides still cannot agree, the Minister of Labour issues a “No-Board” Report. The Ministry offers the services of a mediator, but both sides must agree. Seventeen days after a “No Board” report has been filed, a strike or lock-out is legal.

Come out to the YUFA Annual General Membership Meeting and let us know how you feel about these and other bargaining issues.

Date: Friday, 10 November 2006
Time: 12:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Location: Vari Hall C

26 Oct 06 – Yesterday, the Employer increased its across-the-board raise offer to 2% in the first year, 2% in the second year, and 2.25% in the third year of a proposed three year contract, but still with no increase in either PTR or PER. The Association has modified its compensation proposals from 5% to 4% in the first and subsequent years of a new contract, along with increases in both PTR and PER.

The parties continue to discuss a range of issues including workload, research funds, post-mandatory retirement, SRCs, and equity issues, and some progress is being made.

Come out to the Annual General Membership Meeting and let us know how you feel about these and other bargaining issues.

16 Oct 06 - Despite arguments put forward by the YUFA Bargaining Team, the Team continues to see only slow movement from the Employer who continues to propose an across-the-board raise of only 1.5% in the first year, 1.75% in the second year, and 2.0% in the third year, with no increase in either PTR or PER, while continuing to ask what will move YUFA toward settlement.

There has been some progress in recent weeks, including some small movement toward YUFA by the Employer and some lowering of demands by YUFA. On the Employer’s Webpage, they express this part well: “Agreement has been reached on several, largely non-monetary items in the course of these meetings, which have continued to proceed in a positive, respectful atmosphere.”

Bargaining is a major item on the agenda, so come out to support your Association and hear more about where we stand at that time.

22 Sep 06 – Despite several eloquent arguments put forward by YUFA Chief Negotiator, Scott Forsyth, the Bargaining Team continues to see only slow movement from the Employer. They continue to propose an across-the-board raise of only 1.5% in the first year, 1.75% in the second year, and 2.0% in the third year, with no increase in either PTR or PER. They have proposed a three-year contract, but the Association sees no advantage to a multi-year contract under the proposed terms to date.

The Employer has shown no interest in discussing workload or issues arising from restructuring. They also refuse to consider offering the 2006 retirement cohort the option of reinstatement. The Bargaining Team continues to work hard on YUFA members’ behalf. Look for further updates after the YUFA Executive Meeting on 27 September.

1 Sep 06 – On Tuesday, the Employer finally brought some economic figures to the bargaining table. The Across-the-Board salary increases / Progress-through-the-Ranks / Professional Expense Reimbursement offers were extremely low. We were at first reluctant to release the actual figures, believing that the Employer would be coming back with further offers on proposals that our members consider important, such as improvements to workload, benefits, and leaves. On Thursday, the Employer returned to the table and essentially informed us that until we begin to barter away some of the things we consider important, they will not come forward with any further economic proposals.

We need the Employer’s full offer before we respond appropriately. In the spirit of good labour relations, we felt it would be diplomatic to give them a chance to provide this information before informing our members.

After Thursday, however, when the Employer informed us that no further information on their economic proposals would be forthcoming, we now see no reason why you should not know their opening offer, which is: 1.5% Across-the-Board salary increase in the first year of a new contract and no increases to Progress-through-the-Ranks and Professional Expense Reimbursement.

The Team has meetings scheduled with the Employer through September and will continue to bargain on your behalf.

24 Aug 06 – The Bargaining Team went back to the negotiating table on Tuesday after a three week hiatus and a little vacation time, resuming regular meetings with the Employer.

Just for your information and to set your minds at ease, given that it is nearly September and we are still negotiating a contract that was due to start 1 May, we have always received back pay once the contract is ratified, and there is no reason to believe we won’t this time. Your Bargaining Team will make sure it is written into the final arrangements.

27 Jul 06 – In the four weeks since starting negotiations, the YUFA Bargaining Team has met with the Employer in seven full-day meetings, the first two for preliminary stage-setting and exchange of proposals (YUFA’s full, the Employer’s partial), with another half-dozen full-day Team caucus meetings. YUFA and the Employer have agreed on a few small points, but the two sides continue to disagree on major areas, including:

While all these issues remain on the bargaining table, the Employer has so far emphatically declined to show an interest in YUFA’s proposals with respect to the issues. YUFA continues to press the Employer for what they term their “economic proposals” – anything that has a cost attached to it. YUFA tends not to compartmentalize so readily; all issues have some economic basis, and even the most seemingly cost-based issues have social justice issues built into them.

It is a slow process. Because a great deal of material is presented right in the negotiating room, neither side can just immediately agree to a change, even if it seems eminently reasonable. YUFA must caucus to ensure that any response given coincides with what the Bargaining Team understands the membership to want. The Employer equally cannot just respond to a verbal or written presentation from YUFA without caucusing first to be sure they are in agreement. (And in time both sides must consult with their principals; for YUFA, the ultimate principal is the membership, who must ratify the final negotiated agreement). All these things take time, and the Team makes up for unavoidable lost time in small ways that may eventually take a toll; they work through lunch, eating sandwiches brought in, and on the one day that one member begged for a few minutes to get outside to see some sunshine, it was heartily agreed that this was an admirable idea, but time was never found.

The process remains a generally polite and respectful one, with even occasional shared humour, a consistent misspelling of the word Employer by the Employer being one example, but the YUFA team would be happier if they could see the Employer’s full package.

Due to vacation plans, bargaining will be in hiatus for three weeks in August, but will resume on August 22.

13 Jul 06 – YUFA has begun the process of bargaining with the Employer. The first order of business in negotiations, not a small task, is to set out the ground rules and establish the understandings under which the two sides will work together. Something as seemingly trivial as confirming that the absence of any member of either team on any given day of negotiations will most likely be due to an unavoidable schedule conflict and is not to be taken as a strategic manoeuvre is important to the smooth working of the process and sets a tone of mutual respect and openness that paves the way, it is hoped, for good working conditions under which to negotiate a contract.

After ground rules and the parameters were agreed upon, YUFA’s first step was to reiterate our commitment to the reinstatement of the1 July 2006 retirees (the “2006 cohort”). The Employer’s first proposal reiterated their unresponsiveness to the union’s position on this issue. Our position on the continuation and reinstatement of the 2006 cohort of retirees remains on the table.

Given YUFA’s long standing position of wishing to allow the 2006 cohort to continue employment, we are very disappointed by the Employer’s position on this issue. We informed the Employer of YUFA’s position well in advance of the passage of the relevant legislation, and vigorously attempted to engage the Employer in amending the 2003-2006 Collective Agreement so that the 2006 cohort would be able to continue employment. We note that our sister institution, the University of Toronto, did allow people who would otherwise have had to retire during the transition period the opportunity to continue employment indefinitely.

Our bargaining team is well into the process and are working hard, in full day sessions. The team hopes to conclude a fair and just Collective Agreement with significant improvements in salary, workload, and benefits for all members. The Chief Negotiator noted that this is a particularly important negotiation because it is the first following the removal of mandatory retirement.

Our bargaining team consists of Chief Negotiator Scott Forsyth (Film, Fine Arts / Political Science, Arts), Mary Kandiuk (Library), Benjamin Lowinsky (Social Science / Centre for Academic Writing, Arts), Bob MacDermid (Political Science, Arts), Louise Ripley (Administrative Studies, Atkinson / Women’s Studies / FES), and Jill Flohil (YUFA). The bargaining team will call on additional members from YUFA and the Association of Retired Faculty (ARF) for specific additional expertise as needed.

The Employer’s Chief Negotiator is John Brooks, a labour lawyer with Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart and Storie. Brooks has served as the Employer’s Chief Negotiator for the last several negotiations and is regularly hired to represent university employers in collective bargaining negotiations. The other members of the Employer’s team are Barry Miller (Director, Academic Employee Relations), Paul Axelrod (Dean, Education), Rhonda Lenton (Dean, Atkinson), Artan Karini (Human Resources / Employee Relations Analyst), and Marilyn Juhani (Administrative Assistant to Barry Miller).

Collective Bargaining