Over the past months, the new senior administration of Memorial University has attempted to foster a climate of understanding and reasonableness in the realm of labour relations -- a cliate that was often sorely lacking in the past. And, to their credit, to a considerable extent they have succeeded.
Even as late as our first negotiating session on October 4, the MUNFA Negotiating Committee shared a sense of optimism with the rest of the University community. Dr. Jack Strawbridge, the administration's chief negotiator, introduced his team's proposals with a statement that they had filtered out of their proposed changes many of the things which were likely to cause "annoyance" to MUNFA members. They were intent on bargaining reasonably and in good faith in an attempt to reach a new collective agreement as quickly as possible, perhaps even by December 15. An attempt was made to enhance this mood by the insertion of a written preamble to the administration's contract proposals, which has now been circulated by the administration to some of our members. In it you will note continued variations on this theme: "various improvements rather than a fundamental revision;" "housekeeping" only; "improvements...in order to clarify mutual understandings;" "common objectives...resolve differences fairly and expeditiously;" "express...equity and mutuality."
After one week of negotiations, just how well does reality match up with the administration's hopes?
We are heartened to learn that the administration "believe that Memorial professors should be better paid than they are at present relative to other Canadian universities." However, as yet we have not seen the administration's salary proposals.
We were disappointed to receive a package from the administration in which Article 3 (Duties and Responsibilities of Faculty Members) was completely struck out and replaced only with an earnest plea to work together to come up with a replacement that could be regarded as adequate to cope with a "complex reality." Working from scratch to develop a new workload article, an article we know is both central to a new collective agreement and difficult to fashion, does not strike us as conducive to a quick settlement.
The administration is proposing significant changes to Articles 9 through 12 (articles covering promotion and tenure of Faculty Members) which will have a negative impact on Academic Staff Members (ASMs). These changes include pushing any tenure consideration into the sixth year of a tenure-track appointment, thus increasing by one year the time required before tenure would be granted. Under the proposals, all tenure and promotion decisions would require external appraisals from "recognized" scholars with a "national or international reputation for excellence." A requirement that these scholars would have to be "independent of the candidates" would exclude former supervisors and co-researchers from the evaluation process. Particularly for tenure decisions, this would be an onerous provision. To be tenured and promoted candidates would also have to provide "a demonstrated record of effective academic service." The addition of the word 'effective' means that the quality of committee work would have to be evaluated. Who evaluates effectiveness? Is a Committee member who dissents to be considered ineffective?
Repeatedly their proposals attempt to increase administration control over hiring, tenure and promotion by eroding the power of collegial committees, including P & T committees. For example, the administration have proposed deleting the sentence in Clause 7.20 that says "The Administrative Head shall recommend only individuals who have been recommended for appointment in the report of the Search Committee."
Significant changes are also proposed to several clauses in Article 19 (Disciplinary Measures). The Administration would like to be able to discipline ASMs for something called "unprofessional conduct," although what this means and how such a determination would be made were not made clear. They also seek to prevent "medical disability or illness" being used more than once as a defence in discipline cases. Currently, the administration cannot discipline an ASM when difficulties have arisen from a medical disability. Furthermore, the administration would like to be able to issue what are essentially letters of warning without these letters being clearly identified as such. In other words, the administration could start disciplinary action without telling the ASM. The administration also want the power to investigate an ASM without notifying him or her.
Important changes are proposed for Article 21, which would give the administration more control over "outside professional activity, paid or not," and make the reporting of all such activity mandatory regardless of whether the activities interfere, or the administration believes they may interfere, with the ASM's university obligations.
Vacations for everyone would be limited to 20 working days, with no carryover of vacation time from one year to the next, no payments in lieu of vacation and no sick leave to be granted for those who become ill while on vacation.
Given the scope and seriousness of these proposed changes and the fact that we have not seen the administration's workload and salary articles, it seems overly optimistic to expect that a new contract will be negotiated by December 15th.
MUNFA Negotiating Committee: