November 9, 2000
On the afternoon of Wednesday November 8, negotiations once again stalled because the administration refused to negotiate. Instead, the administration has flooded the media with distortions of MUNFA's financial proposals, which , in fact, have become progressively less expensive for the administration. Rather than rebut the employer point by point, it will be more useful to explain the current situation.
What has happened?
MUNFA has always been willing to negotiate. Yesterday ( Wednesday, November 8), the conciliator brought together the chief negotiators, each with two colleagues, to discuss the situation. MUNFA reiterated its positions on the outstanding issues and reiterated its willingness to negotiate them. The administration obstinately insisted that there is nothing to negotiate: its answer was NO!
Today (Thursday, November 9), in an effort to to re-start negotiations, the conciliator called in the entire MUNFA Negotiating Team ‘for a chat'. Our team, as always, eager to get things moving, offered a compromise package which the conciliator has promised to discuss with the administration. MUNFA made it clear that this was not a pick and choose selection - all items would have to be negotiated together. No more Nos!
The items and the rationales are as follows:
The administration opened negotiations wanting to keep this rate at $3519, where it has been frozen since 1989. They have now raised this figure to $3800. MUNFA wants a more reasonable $4500. The MUNFA negotiators indicated a willingness to split the difference.
MUNFA has always insisted that everyone must get something from this Collective Agreement. Front-end loading of the salary increases is desirable for all MUNFA members, but especially for retirees whose lifetime pension incomes depend on the salary over their last five working years. If the administration will not front-end load salary increases for everyone, let us work out a way to front-end load the salaries of people who retire over the life of this Collective Agreement. The cost would fall dramatically.As an alternative, we could work out a reasonable severance pay system. This is less desirable than front- end loading because pension benefits would not be increased, but would put some money into the pockets of retirees.
One way or another, the retirees must get something.
The administration in another context offered a special two-year $750 PDER for non-PhDs. MUNFA would like this system applied to non-PhD lecturers, the only group of colleagues who would get nothing from MUN's "structural adjustment" proposals.
The administration has resisted this proposal, and some MUNFA members have indicated to us that the proposal may pose difficulties in their units. Therefore, instead of reducing the teaching norms during the life of this Collective Agreement, we propose that each academic unit with a six course load should establish a committee of members to consider the matter and make recommendations to the Administrative Head. The process would include "collegial consultation", involving meetings, discussion and a vote - which is advisory. Why should the administration object to this?
MUNFA wants professional memberships to qualify for repayment through the PDER. The employer has argued that this would violate Revenue Canada (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) rules, citing a case at Simon Fraser University. However, in April of this year Revenue Canada confirmed that the Simon Fraser policy, which is effectively the same as the MUNFA proposal, is consistent with their policy. Thus, MUNFA's proposal is clearly legal and the employer has no reason to object any longer.
The MUNFA negotiators emphasized to the conciliator that our proposal has always been that carryover vacation should be paid only to those who are unable to take vacation because of teaching responsibilities. For instance, if someone retires or resigns on December 1st after teaching in the fall term, he or she would be paid for the unused vacation. Someone who retires on August 31st as most people do, after having no teaching commitments during the spring or summer sessions, would receive no payment for unused vacation, because it would have been possible to take the vacation before leaving.
MUNFA Negotiating Committee:
All issues of Negotiating News are accessible at http://www.mun.ca/munfa/negnews.html