NEGOTIATING NEWS #9
26 April 2000
OVERVIEW OF NEGOTIATIONS TO DATE
Recent editions of Negotiating News have focused on MUNFA's salary and early retirement proposals (Article 30). Although more than a month has passed since MUNFA presented its proposals for Article 30, the administration has not yet responded. In this Negotiating News, we provide an overview of negotiations on articles other than Article 30.
The start of negotiations was delayed, at the administration=s request. The administration declined to adopt MUNFA=s suggestion that negotiations be restricted to a relatively small number of Articles. Thus, renegotiation of the entire Collective Agreement began on October 4, 1999.
The negotiating process has been a protracted one, with fifty-one negotiating sessions to date. MUNFA has proposed a number of significant improvements to the Collective Agreement:
! a duty to accommodate the employment needs of Academic Staff Members (ASMs) with disabilities (Article 2)
! a new section on ethical conduct for research involving humans, to introduce greater accountability for the new Research Ethics Boards that have now been established (Article 2)
! parental leave (Article 22)
! collegial processes for shared and adjunct appointments, so that such appointments are not imposed upon Academic Units (Article 23)
! better benefits and substantial improvements in working conditions for term appointees (Article 23)
! regular air quality tests for buildings known to contain asbestos; notification to ASMs before work involving hazardous materials begins (Article 26)
! early retirement and pension clauses (Article 30)
! collegial procedures for the appointment, promotion and tenure of Academic Administrators (Article 31)
On these matters -- accommodation of the disabled, accountability, collegiality, parental leave, faculty renewal and an enhanced pension, the administration has said, "No." They have made it clear that they want more discretionary power over workload assignment, more stringent working conditions and the >toughening up= of procedures for promotion and tenure because, they say, our standards are "too low."
To be sure, some progress has been made. Four Articles have been agreed, with little or no change from the current Collective Agreement: Article 5 (Reduction in Duties and Responsibilities), Article 6 (Research Appointments), Article 14 (Procedures for the Formation of Promotion and Tenure Committees for Librarians) and Article 24 (Counselling Faculty Members).
Some progress has also been made on Articles dealing with the appointment, promotion and tenure, and assessment files of Faculty Members and Librarians (Articles 7 - 18). Some of the differences remaining in these Articles result from ongoing changes in administrative organization at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College.
Article 1 (Framework and Implementation) has been set aside temporarily, as its definitions permeate the entire text of the Collective Agreement. One fundamental difference between us in Article 1 concerns the administration's refusal to consider adding a definition of Formal Approval, which reads in part:
"Formal Approval" shall mean a process whereby ASMs meet collectively with their Administrative Head to discuss and approve an issue by means of a majority vote... (MUNFA Proposals).
The administration regards this open, collegial process as too much of a constraint on Heads' discretionary powers. Whenever MUNFA proposes that Formal Approval should be part of a decision-making process, the administration strikes it out.
On Article 3 (Duties and Responsibilities of Faculty Members) we are far apart. What constitutes normal duties is a matter of dispute. There are significant differences with respect to teaching norms, equivalencies for non-standard courses (e.g., credit for supervision of theses and internships, field work, studio courses), procedures for assigning teaching, and entitlement to a one-course remission when scholarly activity is above the norm. The administration also wants the right to assign distance education courses as part of normal load. There are major differences in the parallel Article (Article 4) covering Librarians= workload.
Significant differences divide us on other Articles as well. Article 19 (Discipline) is held up because the administration wants to make it easier to discipline and dismiss ASMs when recurrent illness is involved. In Article 21 (Outside Professional Activities) the administration wants to impose limitations on such activities, and to charge for the use of University facilities even when the activities involve community service. Leaves (Article 22) are proving problematic. The section that deals with sabbaticals has been set aside until salaries are negotiated. The administration wishes to do away with vacation carry-over, it refuses to consider pay in lieu of vacation upon termination, and it is adamant that MUNFA's proposals regarding maternity and paternity leave will not be incorporated into the Collective Agreement. The administration wants per-course stipends to remain at $3,519, a value set a decade ago (Article 23); it wants significantly greater latitude (well beyond the current Collective Agreement) on layoffs for academic programme redundancy (Article 25); and it wants to increase parking fees (Article 26). All these proposals represent significant inroads into our current Collective Agreement.
Given the administration=s stance on all these issues, members should not anticipate a rapid or easy resolution to negotiations as a whole.
MUNFA Negotiating Committee:
All issues of Negotiating News are accessible at http://www.mun.ca/munfa/negnews.htm