Bargaining Blog
Workload
Posted on Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 11:02am
categories: workload, workplace experience survey
We are hearing increasingly from faculty who are concerned with the rising demands placed on them, especially with respect to teaching and service, and with the way workload is managed in their units. They are rightly concerned about how these demands impact their capacities to carry on their research and other scholarly activities. This has led to the proposals we recently tabled.
In our last round of collective bargaining, the Faculty Association achieved some new language to help our members maintain a workload consistent with their desire to carry on their research, teaching, and service at a high level, but also within the context of a healthy work-life balance. This new language establishes a commitment to reasonable and equitable workload for faculty, as well as a more transparent process for allocating workload within units. While we were pleased to have introduced some basic language on workload into the Collective Agreement we know that our colleagues at comparable institutions (e.g. U of T) have much stronger language to protect faculty time for the scholarly activities that are the centre of our academic lives. We are still hearing from many members that they are dissatisfied with the level of collegiality and transparency involved in the development of departmental workload policies and we note that these concerns are even reflected in the recent Workplace Experiences Survey conducted by UBC (see for example page 27 of the University’s presentation.)
Accordingly in the current round of bargaining, we have tabled proposals to make clearer our expectation that practices at UBC should recognize the importance of giving faculty reasonable time to perform all aspects of their duties. In particular, we recognize that research and other scholarly activities require significant, dedicated time periods.
To this end, some of the proposals we have presented are: (1) that each unit establish a Unit Workload Committee to create and maintain the Unit Workload Policy, (2) that workload assignments should ensure equity within ranks in teaching loads, (3) that in the interest of research and scholarship, faculty shall not be required to teach in more than two terms, namely Winter Terms 1 and 2, though faculty may voluntarily agree to a redistribution of their teaching load into the summer session, (4) that faculty holding joint appointments shall be assigned teaching and service in a manner consistent with their percentage appointment to each unit, (5) that there should not be significant discrepancies in workload between the Vancouver and Okanagan Campuses for the same academic unit/disciplinary areas, and (6) that faculty members in the Instructor Classifications are entitled to reasonable time to perform all aspects of their duties.
While the university has not tabled a counter-proposal on workload, they have indicated that they would prefer that we work within the present language of our collective agreement on matters related to workload. We agree that the language about Unit Workload Policies is relatively new and so is still being implemented, but we are also certain that the proposals we have presented simply provide detailed guidance to units about core features that their Unit Workload Policies should have to address specific concerns raised by faculty. It is certainly in our mutual interest to have conditions under which all faculty can carry out their work at the levels expected at UBC.
Next up on the blog: TBA
Be sure to check back to the blog on a regular interval. Or, you can to our blog to get automatic updates.
If you prefer updates via an RSS feed, activate here.Contract Academic Staff
Posted on Friday, April 27, 2012 at 10:10am
categories: sessionals, 12-month lecturers
We have two general types of members who teach: those who are tenure stream and those on term contracts of one type or another. How many of our members are contract faculty? A lot more than many people realize. In February 2012 there were approximately 3,430 members of the bargaining unit (because of the way UBC reports employment data it is difficult to get exactly accurate “snapshot” numbers). Of those members, about 100 (3%) held non-instructional positions, about 2,515 (73%) held tenured stream appointments and the rest, about 815 (24%), were on limited term contracts of one type or another. Most members on contracts are either Sessional Lecturers (about 600 members) who hold appointments of less than one year, or 12-month Lecturers (about 160 members) who hold appointments of at least one year. The remaining members on contracts are typically appointed to “without review” positions as per UBC Policy 42.
While it would appear that about one-quarter of all instructional members are contract academic faculty, that number is deceptive. Sessional Lecturers constitute about 600 members in any given month during the Winter term, but the numbers are higher when an entire academic year is taken into account (e.g. in 2010-2011, 891 members held sessional contracts). Combined with 12-month Lecturers, well over 1,000 different members work at UBC each year under contract. These members do a very significant amount of undergraduate teaching, accounting for as much as 70% (or more) of all undergraduate instruction in some departments.
The status of these contract academic faculty is, for the most part, abysmal. A recent arbitration process resulted in a ruling that most Sessional Lecturers have the right to only a single course per year. Even Sessional Lecturers who have been teaching the same courses for ten years or more (and there are many such people) have to compete with each other annually for any work above the one course per year minimum. Sessional Lecturers who do not have at least a 50% workload are denied most heath and welfare benefits. Even full-time Sessional Lecturers, unless they teach every term, lose their health and welfare benefits in the summer. The median annual income of Sessional Lecturers in 2011-2012 was $10,475. Of course most Sessional Lecturers do not work all year. The median monthly income of Sessional Lecturers, counting only months during which they were employed, was a whopping $2,268.
Although the Sessional Lecturers classification is structured as if it was designed for casual, part-time, temporary work, the reality is that approximately 300 of the Sessional Lecturers employed in 2011-2012 had been employed for over 5 years and approximately 450 of them taught seven or more months of the year. Although the University repeatedly dismissively refers to Sessional Lecturers as people just “dragged in off the street”, whose teaching abilities have never been properly assessed, they can adduce no evidence that the distribution of teaching abilities among Sessional Lecturers is any different than the distribution of teaching abilities among other instructional classifications. In truth, a large percentage of Sessional Lecturers are not casual labour. They are a significant and increasingly long-serving component of our membership trapped in a precarious employment classification that is inadequate for the employees who provide a major contribution to the undergraduate teaching responsibilities of the University.
The situation for 12-month Lecturers is both better and worse. They have full-year jobs, are entitled to year-round health and welfare benefits, and their median monthly salary is much higher than that of Sessionals. In February 2012 the median monthly salary of 12-month Lecturers was $5,883. (By contrast, the median monthly salary of Instructors was $7,936 and the median monthly salary of members of the professoriate was $10,182.) On the other hand, 12-month Lecturers have absolutely no right to reappointment as a 12-month Lecturer and, unless they previously held a Sessional Lecturer appointment, they have no right to ongoing employment at the university at all. This despite that they are in positions that are eligible for merit and progress through the ranks (PTR) salary increases. It makes no sense at all for members in a classification eligible for PTR not to have long-term security of employment.
The situation we currently face with the status of contract academic faculty is completely unacceptable. Most contract academic faculty hold Sessional Lecturer appointments, appointments that, at best, make sense for staffing part-time temporary positions. Yet the work of Sessional Lecturers is clearly on-going, and in almost every department that employs Sessionals, there are more than enough courses taught by Sessionals to justify allocating Sessional work to full-time positions. 12-month Lecturers, on the other hand, hold positions that are designed to be held by permanent employees, given their salary structure, yet they have no employment security at all.
The Association is proposing three simple, yet important, modifications to the existing language pertaining to Sessional Lecturers and 12-month Lecturers. First, to give 12-month Lecturers a right of reappointment. Second, to give Sessional Lecturers the right to accrue, on a seniority basis, courses in the “sessional pool” for which they are qualified. Third, to ensure that 12-month Lecturer appointments are filled internally, from the pool of Sessional Lecturers, and are only advertised externally in the absence of qualified internal applicants. Although these proposals may seem modest, we think they will improve the job security of that one-quarter of our members currently employed precariously as contract academic faculty.
Next up on the blog: Workload
Guest Blog: Equity for All
Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 10:15am
categories: equity
FA Note: During this round of bargaining, we will be posting a limited number of guest blogs written by our members and selected by the bargaining committee to represent important bargaining concerns.
The University of British Columbia Faculty Association, echoing the Canadian Association of University Teachers, recognizes the importance of securing equity for all members of our bargaining group. The Faculty Association aspires to take a leadership role in realizing equity by negotiating a full equity provision in the Collective Agreement. The goal of a commitment to equity is the achievement of an inclusive and fair workplace in which all are accorded equal recognition and respect. This issue is, of course, key for members of marginalized groups disproportionately excluded from full participation in the academy. Such marginalized groups include but are not limited to Aboriginal peoples, women, visible/racialized minorities, persons with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer, and two-spirited persons. Systemic discrimination manifests itself in a variety of ways—more specifically in barriers to access to employment and advancement, governance, inclusion, respect, and acceptance. Equity is both an individual and collective responsibility.
Article 4 of the current Collective Agreement between the University of British Columbia and the UBC Faculty Association states that relevant parties to the Agreement will not discriminate regarding any term or condition of employment. The clause sets out prohibited grounds of discrimination, a commitment to “fostering a positive working climate of mutual respect”, and stated agreement on the “principle of employment equity for all groups”.
The vast majority of faculty collective agreements at Canadian universities feature such “No Discrimination” clauses. However, the content of the clauses varies significantly. A comparison of UBC’s “No Discrimination” clause against those of other universities, in addition to the Canadian Association of University Teachers’ Model Clause on Non-Discrimination, reveals a number of shortcomings in the current UBC clause. Simply put, Article 4 is less comprehensive than ideal.
The UBCFA is thus proposing a more expansive Equity, Diversity, and Anti-Discrimination clause to replace the existing Article 4 in our Collective Agreement. The proposed clause begins by stating the University’s commitment to a community that recognizes and values the inherent worth and dignity of every person; fosters tolerance, sensitivity, understanding, and mutual respect among its members; and encourages each individual to strive to reach her or his own potential. The proposal expands the specification of employment circumstances in which discrimination is prohibited as well as provides a fuller list of prohibited grounds. The proposed provision also commits both the University and the Faculty Association to the principle of employment equity and to the elimination of systemic barriers to full and equal participation. A key paragraph in the proposed clause reads that:
The parties are committed to an equitable workplace, recognizing that achieving equity demands a proactive approach and institutional accountability. The goal of equity is inclusivity at all levels. Equity is achieved through a variety of measures, including recognition, respect, numerical representation, and protection against discrimination, including accommodation and valuing of difference.
It is well accepted by both the Faculty Association and the UBC Administration that equality and diversity are important goals and guarantees. As Chair of the Faculty Association’s Status of Women’s Committee, I think it makes simply sense to articulate these shared values in the Collective Agreement as an expression of mutual aspiration and commitment. Such an expression is neither novel nor radical. It simply would capture what both parties to the Agreement have already endorsed in a variety of other statements and documents as the minimal conditions of a fair, vibrant, and effective work environment.
Margot Young
Chair, Status of Women Committee
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law
University of British Columbia
Next up on the blog: Contract Academic Staff
Progress Through the Ranks Increases
Posted on Monday, April 23, 2012 at 3:45pm
categories: salary, salary increases, CPI, merit, PSA
The salary structure of every university in Canada comprises, to a greater or lesser extent, two major components; across-the-board increases (ATB, previously discussed), and progress through the ranks (PTR), which at UBC is also called the career advancement plan (CAP).
As explained in our May 25, 2010 blog:
Salaries in most jobs are characterized by seniority-based pay systems. This is partially to account for increasing productivity over time, but primarily it is designed to defer compensation from the early part of the employee’s career to the latter part. Depending on the nature of the job, the salary-experience gradient may be short and steep or long and gradual. Universities typically have very long gradual deferred salary systems with faculty starting at salaries well below the salaries they expect to have at retirement, and typically reaching top-of-scale at a very senior stage, or possibly not at all.
If across-the-board increases keep pace with inflation and with salaries at other major universities, the structure of the PTR scheme will determine the ratio of
salaries at retirement to starting salaries. Unfortunately ATB increases have not kept up over the last couple of decades, contributing to salary compression.
At UBC, and at many other universities, the value of PTR is determined as a percentage of salary (1.25% for Career Progress Increments, 0.75% for Merit, and 0.5% for PSA). Consequently the average value of PTR varies from year to year. In 2011 the average PTR value was $3,006. While not the highest in Canada (for example, at the University of Alberta it was $3,779 and at the University of Ottawa it was $3,691), the percentage value, at 2.5%, is pretty typical.
In our 2010 survey we asked a series of very detailed questions about the structure of our PTR system and got a very strong message back that members were happy with the general structure (although they did express concerns about the transparency and fairness of Merit and PSA decisions). Consequently we did not propose any changes to the general structure of PTR either in 2010 or in this round.
There are a couple of specific features of the UBC system that have caused some problems, and we have proposed a few minor adjustments that we think will improve the system.
First, the value of an increment at UBC is not set in value, but is allowed to be determined residually. As a result, it rises every year, sometimes by significantly more than the ATB increase. For example, over the last two years the value of an increment rose by almost 8%, while ATB was 0%. Because members earn more increments early in their career than later in their career, this too contributes to salary compression. For example, an Assistant Professor hired in 2009 would have received, in his or her first two years, 20.8% more than somebody hired just four years previously would have earned in his or her first two years. These differentials obviously compound over time. We have proposed capping the CPI value at $1,500 (currently it is $1,618) and distributing the excess equally to all members eligible to receive merit/psa/cpi.
Capping increments and allowing them to increase in pace with inflation is a much more common approach in Canadian universities than the one we currently use at UBC.
Additionally, the structure of our Merit pool means that there will often not be enough Merit for all members of a unit who are, in fact, meritorious. For example, according to data provided by the university, last year in the English department (chosen for this example because its large size will minimize the effect of random variations) there were only 25 merit units available, meaning that fewer than 45% of members could receive merit. This certainly represents a potential constraint in the fair distribution of PTR. We have proposed allowing departments to award ½-units of merit, where they think it is appropriate to increase the number of members who could receive merit, or to deal with difficulties caused by cross-listed appointments.
We have also proposed an extension of the long-service increments, which proved popular with members when introduced in the last round, and we have made a technical proposal concerning the date at which increments and Merit/PSA are made which would eliminate the need to delay those payments during every bargaining round.
Next up on the blog: Guest Blog: Equity for All
Guest Blog: University's Parental Leave Proposal
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 10:05am
categories: parental leave, tenure
FA Note: During this round of bargaining, we will be posting a limited number of guest blogs written by our members and selected by the bargaining committee to represent important bargaining concerns.
I have been reading over the University's bargaining proposals as posted on the Faculty Association website. I am writing to express my significant concern with the University's proposal #6, Maternity / Parental / Adoptive Leave During Pre-Tenure Period. As outlined on the website, the University proposes that the parental leave policy as it affects the tenure clock be changed such that leaves of less than 15 weeks do not result in extending the tenure clock by one year.
As a father-to-be, I am deeply concerned with this proposal. Our department, School of Engineering at UBCO, consists of a young and mostly male faculty. As of now, most of the faculty have taken their parental leave when the opportunity arose. The male faculty take 12 weeks precisely because the University only tops up our salary to 95% for a maximum of 12 weeks. Under the university's proposal, none of the male faculty who are new fathers would get an extension on their tenure clock. In contrast, this proposed policy change would still allow female faculty who have children to extend their tenure clock, since maternity leave is for 17 weeks with a salary top up to 95%.
In my opinion, the effect of this proposed change would be that fewer fathers would take parental leave, and even the ones who do would continue to work hard during their parental leaves. Canada as a country, and UBC, as an institution, strive for gender equality. The result of this proposed change would reduce the equality when it comes to the birth of a child.
In my personal situation, I will be "working" just as hard as my wife during the first few months after the child is born. Whether my leave is 12 weeks or 15 weeks does not change the fact that the extension of my tenure clock will help me to be an excellent parent, as well as being an excellent UBC faculty member, teacher, researcher, and scholar.
In Canada today, both spouses work, and the general expectation is that both parents share equally in child-rearing. If this is the case, then UBC should make it possible for both female and male faculty members to have their tenure clocks extended when taking the maximum leave that the University is willing to top up for the birth of a child.
André Phillion, Ph.D., P. Eng.
Assistant Professor, School of Engineering
University of British Columbia – Okanagan Campus
Next up on the blog: Progress Through the Ranks Increases
Minimum Scales for Sessional Faculty
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2012 at 8:55am
categories: bargaining, minimum scales, sessionals
In 2010, one of our bargaining proposals was for a unified minimum salary scale for all sessionals. We have this as one of our bargaining objectives this year as well. Here is the rationale we provided to the members in 2010:
One of the basic ways to prevent teaching-intensive positions from becoming a ghetto for the academics who uphold UBC’s teaching mission is to guarantee respectable minimum salaries. Currently there are four different minimum scales for sessional faculty, varying across Faculties. These minimum scales are based on a notion of “percentage of full-time work per term” that a sessional faculty member is assigned. Thus, if a Faculty decides that a full-time per term load for teaching appointments is 6 credit hours (e.g., Architecture), then the minimum pay for a 3-credit course is $2,890. If another Faculty determines that a full-time load per term is 15 credit hours (e.g., Education and Applied Science), then the minimum salary for a 3-credit course is $1,155. Obviously, a Faculty that wants to save money on its teaching mandate by paying less to sessional faculty can decree that a full-time load is 15 (or more) credit hours per term, as then the minimum salary for a 3-credit course could be driven down considerably.
The current way of calculating the minimum pay for a 3-credit course cannot be justified by the University. Minimum scales don’t mean that everyone gets paid the same; they just establish a reasonable base-line upon which to build. Though we accept that there are market differences across disciplines, determining minimum scales based on an invented and fluctuating notion of full-time teaching loads is arbitrary at best. Our proposal on minimum scales emphasizes that a 3-credit course is a 3-credit course, no matter what Faculty it’s taught in. We’ve proposed that the standard scale should be the one currently governing the majority of sessionals: Faculties of Arts, Science, Medicine, and Health Sciences.
Another way to think about this issue is to use the following analogy. You and I both want to employ someone to clean our house once a week. We both think $100 is a fair price to pay for such a task. The difference is that I think that for $100, the person should work for 10 hours, and you think to earn that $100, the person should work for 4 hours. That’s about the same logic that describes the differences in the minimum salary scales across the faculties: how many hours a faculty thinks its sessionals should work in order to earn $100. This number varies significantly, and we would say arbitrarily as well.
It is for these reasons that we are fighting for a unified minimum scale for sessionals.
Next up on the blog: Guest Blog: University's Parental Leave Proposal
Salaries at Comparator Institutions
Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 1:10pm
categories: salary, increases
What is our primary objective in looking at a salary increase for 2012-2014? Our primary objective is to achieve a sufficient across-the-board (ATB) salary increase to protect the entire salary structure of our members from the effects of inflation, and to ensure that salaries at UBC maintain pace with salaries at other Canadian universities of comparable academic quality and size.
In both respects ATB increases for UBC faculty in recent years have been inadequate. According to Statistics Canada, the Consumer Price Index in British Columbia increased by 1.3% in 2010, and 2.4% in 2011. Yet we have had no ATB increases since July 1, 2009. In fact, between our last raise in July, 2009 and February 2012, the purchasing power of our paycheques has fallen by 4.3%. Meanwhile, the Consumer Price Index in BC is generally forecast to rise by about 4% over the next two years. In other words, it will take approximately an 8% increase over two years just to get us back to where we were two years ago, which is behind where we were in 1993. (For more on the relationship between salary settlements and inflation since 1993 read Rob Clift’s excellent article in November 2011’s Faculty Focus.
Within Canada, the university most directly comparable to UBC in terms of academic quality and size is the University of Toronto. (In the most recent Times Higher Education World Rankings the University of Toronto ranks 19th, while UBC ranks 22nd.) However, other large Canadian universities, like Queen’s, Western, York, and Alberta would also be considered useful comparators. In recent years, we have not kept up with the University of Toronto, nor with any of the large Canadian Universities, as the following table of recent settlements demonstrates.
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
|
Toronto |
3.25% |
|
|
|
Queen’s |
3.20% |
|
|
|
Western |
1.50% |
1.50% |
1.50%+$800 |
1.50%+$1200 |
York |
3.00% |
2.50% |
|
|
Alberta |
4.75% |
|
|
|
Waterloo |
0.00% |
0.00% |
3.00% |
3.00% |
Saskatchewan |
4.50%+$300 |
4.00%+$300 |
4.00%+$300 |
|
McMaster |
3.00%+$750 |
1.00%+$2000 |
1.00%+$2000 |
|
This is obviously not a complete list. A much more complete list, with data sources has been created by Professor Carl Schwartz at SFU.
When the University of Toronto Faculty Association submitted a brief to their Arbitrator on April 23, 2010, they included an analysis of how salaries at the University of Toronto had fared vis-à-vis their comparators. They demonstrated that between 2000 and 2009 “with the exception of the University of British Columbia, all of the major universities in Canada have narrowed the gap between their salaries and those at the University [of Toronto].” Ouch. Since the brief was written there has been a 6.5% increase in salaries at the U of T, making the gap between Toronto and UBC that much larger.
Clearly, a decent across the board increase is in order for our members and we will be looking to achieve that at the bargaining table.
Next up on the blog: Sessional Salaries
The University's Bargaining Proposals
Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at 4:20pm
categories: bargaining, proposals
On February 14 the Association and the University met for the first time for the current round of Collective Bargaining. During this meeting the Parties exchanged proposals and provided a general overview of the problems the proposals are intended to solve, or the objectives they are meant to accomplish. Below we review some of the University’s proposals to give you an idea of what the University hopes to achieve in this round of bargaining.
To date the University has made no proposals regarding across the board increases. This simply reflects where we are in the bargaining process, and is not an immediate cause for concern. (After we receive the proposal, the story could be different.)
Among the major proposals put forward by the University, eliminating tenure at the rank of Assistant Professor seems to be a high priority. This proposal was also on the bargaining table in the last round. It is well known that President Toope does not believe that someone should be tenured if they do not meet the criteria for promotion.
The University proposed merging the existing Merit and PSA pools into one new pool that would be used for merit only. The University also proposed allowing individual Faculties to determine the start and end date for the “year” that comprises the evaluation period for merit and PSA. It turns out that at least some Faculties are in violation of the Collective Agreement on this matter while others have no difficulty in being compliant (the Sauder School of Business, for one), so we are still trying to determine what the real issue is with this.
The University proposed that the parental leave policy as it affects the tenure clock be changed such that leaves of less than 15 weeks do not result in extending the tenure clock by one year. We have yet to determine how many faculty members, if any, that this would affect, or whether this is a serious issue on campus. When we have more information we will be better able to respond to this issue.
The University is seeking to allow Ph.D. students to teach, without giving them sessional appointments, or the protections that come with such appointments. While we can see the need for Ph.D. students to gain teaching experience, the University has not indicated how sessional rights will be protected under their proposal.
The University has made some other proposals that are more technical in nature. You can review all of their proposals here.
It is helpful to remember that the proposals tabled when bargaining begins are only the opening positions of the Parties. Clarity and specific language will evolve over time, as will an indication of priorities. The initial proposals are intended to provide each party with a preliminary indication of the other’s objectives. During bargaining, we will consider the University’s proposals and do the necessary research to formulate responses to their proposals. Undoubtedly the university will be engaged in a similar exercise.
Over the next several weeks we will blog about the Association’s proposals in more details.
Next up on the blog: Across-the-Board Increases
Bargaining: How the Process Unfolds
Posted on Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 9:03am
categories:bargaining, process, arbitration
Negotiating for a new Collective Agreement began in earnest on February 14, when the Faculty Association proposals and the University proposals were exchanged. The Parties met six times in February and March, and have five additional dates set to continue negotiations in April and May. At this time each party has, with two exceptions, provided detailed explanations of what their objectives are and have produced proposed Collective Agreement language that they think will meet their objectives. With the exception of some housekeeping items, no proposals have yet been accepted nor withdrawn, but this is pretty standard at this stage of negotiations.
The two exceptions are a) articles pertaining to Librarians, and b) across-the-board (ATB) salary increases. A separate joint committee is examining the Collective Agreement provisions pertaining to the Library with the objective of making a joint recommendation to the two negotiating teams shortly. With respect to salary, the University has indicated that it will not be ready to table any across-the-board salary increase proposals until April. Accordingly we have not yet tabled any proposals of our own on this matter.
If bargaining does not finish by late June, there will be a summer hiatus and we will resume again sometime after the fall term begins. It is entirely possible that, once the money proposals are on the table, bargaining will move quickly towards a settlement by the end of June. There is no way to predict this at the moment, however.
At some point in the summer the University will receive its formal budget letter. Last year's budget letter was dated July 8, 2011 and the 2010 letter was dated June 18, so there is considerable variation in when the letter is received. Under the terms of our Collective Agreement, if agreement has not been reached within six weeks of the budget letter the matters in dispute are submitted to arbitration. In practice what this means is that, if agreement is not reached by the end of June, the budget letter will probably arrive, and the six week period will probably expire, during the hiatus. Consequently if the Parties do not reach an agreement by late June, bargaining in the fall will resume once an arbitrator is named, and a date for arbitration set. This is exactly what occurred in the 2010-2012 round when the Parties resumed bargaining after the summer hiatus on November 9, 2010 having already agreed on Arbitrator Colin Taylor and having set February 21, 2011 as the date to begin arbitration hearings. As members will recall, the arbitration was cancelled after the Parties reached an agreement on November 19, 2010.
While at one time having an arbitrator adjudicate the issues in dispute was the predominant way of concluding negotiations between the UBCFA and UBC, the last few rounds of bargaining have been concluded without the need to go to arbitration. There is simply no way of knowing whether this trend will continue and consequently the Association has budgeted sufficient human and financial resources to have the agreement settled by binding arbitration, should that prove necessary. This would not, of course, be our first preference as it is always better for the two Parties to come to an agreement jointly.
In subsequent posts over the next several weeks, we will be outlining more comprehensively the issues we have taken to the bargaining table. To avoid email overload, we will not be sending these blog notices routinely, so be sure to check back to the blog on a regular interval. Or, you can subscribe to our blog to get automatic updates.
Next up on the blog: The University's Bargaining Proposals
Bargaining: How the Process Unfolds
Posted on Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 9:03am
categories:bargaining, process, arbitration
Negotiating for a new Collective Agreement began in earnest on February 14, when the Faculty Association proposals and the University proposals were exchanged. The Parties met six times in February and March, and have five additional dates set to continue negotiations in April and May. At this time each party has, with two exceptions, provided detailed explanations of what their objectives are and have produced proposed Collective Agreement language that they think will meet their objectives. With the exception of some housekeeping items, no proposals have yet been accepted nor withdrawn, but this is pretty standard at this stage of negotiations.
The two exceptions are a) articles pertaining to Librarians, and b) across-the-board (ATB) salary increases. A separate joint committee is examining the Collective Agreement provisions pertaining to the Library with the objective of making a joint recommendation to the two negotiating teams shortly. With respect to salary, the University has indicated that it will not be ready to table any across-the-board salary increase proposals until April. Accordingly we have not yet tabled any proposals of our own on this matter.
If bargaining does not finish by late June, there will be a summer hiatus and we will resume again sometime after the fall term begins. It is entirely possible that, once the money proposals are on the table, bargaining will move quickly towards a settlement by the end of June. There is no way to predict this at the moment, however.
At some point in the summer the University will receive its formal budget letter. Last year’s budget letter was dated July 8, 2011 and the 2010 letter was dated June 18, so there is considerable variation in when the letter is received. Under the terms of our Collective Agreement, if agreement has not been reached within six weeks of the budget letter the matters in dispute are submitted to arbitration. In practice what this means is that, if agreement is not reached by the end of June, the budget letter will probably arrive, and the six week period will probably expire, during the hiatus. Consequently if the Parties do not reach an agreement by late June, bargaining in the fall will resume once an arbitrator is named, and a date for arbitration set. This is exactly what occurred in the 2010-2012 round when the Parties resumed bargaining after the summer hiatus on November 9, 2010 having already agreed on Arbitrator Colin Taylor and having set February 21, 2011 as the date to begin arbitration hearings. As members will recall, the arbitration was cancelled after the Parties reached an agreement on November 19, 2010.
While at one time having an arbitrator adjudicate the issues in dispute was the predominant way of concluding negotiations between the UBCFA and UBC, the last few rounds of bargaining have been concluded without the need to go to arbitration. There is simply no way of knowing whether this trend will continue and consequently the Association has budgeted sufficient human and financial resources to have the agreement settled by binding arbitration, should that prove necessary. This would not, of course, be our first preference as it is always better for the two Parties to come to an agreement jointly.
In subsequent posts over the next several weeks, we will be outlining more comprehensively the issues we have taken to the bargaining table. To avoid email overload, we will not be sending these blog notices routinely, so be sure to check back to the blog on a regular interval. Or, you can subscribe to our blog to get automatic updates.
Next up on the blog: The University’s Bargaining Proposals
What Should We Bargain?
Posted on FRIday, September 16, 2011 at 3:45pM
categories: bargaining
Upcoming contract negotiations begin in early 2012, but right now, we want to hear from you! Come to the Faculty Association's face-to-face consultations and tell us what you think. The Association is coming to your area of campus to hear your issues and answer your questions. You may have ideas for us on working conditions, salaries, benefits and/or career paths.
We have planned consultations in various areas of campus for specific groups, but all members are welcome to attend any consultation.
| Okanagan Campus | |||
| Vancouver Campus | |||
Next up on the blog: Bargaining: How the Process Unfolds
Call for Volunteers
Posted on Thursday, September 8, 2011 at 4:05pM
categories: bargaining
In preparation for the 2012 round of negotiations with the University, the Faculty Association is seeking applications for volunteers for the Bargaining Preparation Committee and the Bargaining Advisory Committee.Bargaining Preparation Committee:
Volunteers are needed to assist with the technical preparation stage of collective bargaining including reviewing recent University policies and collective agreements of faculty associations across the country, and conducting salary reviews. The committee will also be responsible for developing bargaining objectives and proposals to be approved by the Executive Committee.
The expectation is that the committee will meet bi-weekly, for at least 6 hours at each meeting, for the duration of the term.
Bargaining Advisory Committee:
The Bargaining Advisory Committee will provide advice and support to the Faculty Association's bargaining team on an issue by issue basis. Meeting schedules for this committee will be on an ad hoc basis throughout the period of negotiations.
If you would like to be considered for the Bargaining Preparation Committee or the Bargaining Advisory Committee, or if you would like more information on the function and time commitments required of volunteers, please email us your name and contact information.
Next up on the blog: What Should We Bargain?
Get updates in your 
