Warning: This
website is confidential and may contain privileged information. By
posting information on this website, we are not waiving either
confidentiality of, or legal privilege in, the content of this website
and of any attachments. You must not copy, forward or disclose the
materials on this website, or any information in or attached to it, to
anyone without the consent of the St. Thomas More College Faculty Union
Executive. In accordance with Article 1.7.2 of the STM Collective
Agreement and if you are not a member of the St. Thomas More College
Faculty Union, you are prohibited from using this communication in any
way.
|
posted Jul 16, 2010 9:48 AM by Bryan Wiebe
[
updated Jul 16, 2010 9:58 AM
]
Re: Smith Letter to STM FacultyDear Members of the STM
Faculty,
As you may recall, on May 31st, the Union Executive promised our
members a response to President Smith's letter, dated May 28th, 2010, in which
he attempts to defend himself against the charge that he has violated (and is
continuing to violate) the academic freedom of Dr. Heidi Epstein. We did ask our
members for patience, since we wanted to take the time to read his letter
carefully and prepare a considered response. We will now provide our response
as an attachment. Since we also believed that the President Smith’s
letter and our response would better enable us to be successful in our
application for the Academic Freedom Fund, we appended both the President’s
letter and our response to our application. We are very pleased to announce
that we have heard back from the Academic Freedom Fund Committee and we were
successful in our application. The STM Faculty Union will be receiving
significant financial support for the costs we have already incurred in
defending Dr. Epstein's academic freedom. Further, if needed, we can apply for
additional financial support if her academic freedom continues to be violated.
We want to take this opportunity to thank Jim Turk, the Academic Freedom
Committee and CAUT in general for their advice and support.
Brian
Chartier President STM Faculty Union
|
posted Jun 2, 2010 7:36 AM by Bryan Wiebe
President’s Report
Annual
General Meeting
St.
Thomas More Faculty Union
May
19, 2010
1. The Executive has had an extremely active year
representing the interest of it members. The activities in which the Executive
has been involved have included:
-
Facilitating the move of an unresolved grievance to arbitration
-
Preparing for judicial review of the Arbitration Board requested by the STM
Administration
-
Coming to an agreement on an abeyance of arbitration of a second grievance
-
Attending numerous executive meetings
-
Attending meetings with the Dean and the STM College President
-
Contacting, emailing and carrying out discussions with CAUT
-
Consultations with Union lawyer about the above matters
-
Coming to an agreement to facilitate celebration for CSF’s
-
Addressing problems for members
-
Attending the CAUT General assembly
I want to note
that there have been no meetings of the Consultation Committee.
2. Initiatives discussed at the last AGM
a)
Last year I discussed the establishment of a Negotiation Caucus. This group was
to research issues, survey membership, establish an action Committee and form a
Newletter/Information Committee. However, given all the time commitments this
initiative did not get off the ground. I would like to seek a three-person ad
hoc committee to pursue this initiative.
b) Last year a motion was passed to establish in
principle the St. Thomas More Faculty Union Scholarship in Social Justice for
any STM student in the range of $2,000 annually. Because of financial
considerations, the Executive has not proceeded with this initiative
3. The
Executive has been dealing with a violation of Academic Freedom. Let me
explain:
Section
3.0 of our Collective Agreement is entitled “Academic Freedom” and 3.1 states,
St.
Thomas More College, as established under its Act of Incorporation, is
committed to the pursuit of truth, the advancement of learning and the
dissemination of knowledge. To this end academic freedom is the freedom of a
member of the teaching faculty and the Librarian of the College...
It
is important to emphasize that academic freedom is not just a right that
tenured faculty members have at our College. It is a right that all teaching
faculty have, including the Librarian, contract academic staff and tenure-track
faculty. As a Union Executive, we are not only willing to pursue cases that
violate a member’s academic freedom; we are obligated to do so. We must pursue
violations of academic freedom regardless of whether or not we agree with the
particular views that are being expressed. In the words of Article 3.1, if a
member is disseminating “his/her opinion on questions relating to his/her
discipline both inside and outside the classroom”, if a member is carrying out
research “which she believes will enhance knowledge” and expressing the
“results of such research in a reasonable manner” and even if a member is
criticizing “...the College, University and Society at large”, we are obligated
to defend all member’s right to do so.
In
this regard, the Union is currently pursuing a case involving the violation of
academic freedom for one of our members, Dr. Heidi Epstein. We have been
pursuing this case for over a year and there have been two grievances regarding
this case. Since we believe this is in important case for our Union, we have
already put considerable time and energy into this case, along with
considerable financial and legal resources. Due to our limited resources, we
will need the help of CAUT and its Academic Freedom Fund to resolve this issue.
Because of the important of this case, I want to take this opportunity to
explain why it is an issue of academic freedom.
As
many of you know, Heidi had gone through the tenure process and had been
recommended for tenure at each stage of the tenure process. In other words, her
peers, along with three external reviewers, had assessed her teaching, research
and professional conduct. At each stage of the tenure process, it was
determined that she had met the criteria. In fact, the Tenure and Promotions
Committee had recommended her for tenure over a year ago. However, the STM
College President is refusing to take this recommendation to the Board of
Governors. President Smith is simply refusing, even though the Collective
Agreement (7.7.5) states, “In the event of a positive vote by the Tenure and
Promotions Committee, the recommendation shall be sent to the President who
shall review the files before sending them to the President of the
University…The President of the University shall make his or her
recommendations on the award of tenure to the President of STM no later than
February 15. The President of STM shall advise the candidate and Head of the
candidate’s College department of the recommendation to be made to the Board
[emphasis added]” All these “shalls” in President Smith’s eyes, apparently do
not apply in this case. The President’s unprecedented step, and I want to
emphasize unprecedented step, in simply refusing to make a recommendation to
the Board is the subject of our second grievance which we had put in abeyance with
the belief that the Administration was sincere in its intentions to resolve
this matter as soon as possible. Clearly, this is not the case.
What
makes this matter an issue of academic freedom needs explanation. The reason
for the President Smith’s refusal to take the recommendation further appears to
be his belief that material contained in a memo by Dean Still (dated February
12, 2009) was not given adequate consideration by the Tenure and Promotions
Committee. The Still Memo was submitted two weeks prior to the Tenure and
Promotions Committee meeting. The material consists of a handful of student
complaints, which, even in Dean Still’s own words, is a “summary account” that
is “largely one-sided” and which appears to be serious and intentional misrepresentation
of events with the goal of putting Dr. Epstein's conduct in the worst light
possible. This action should raise a number of questions. Why should a handful
of student complaints, none of which, apparently, warranted so much as a letter
of warning being placed in Heidi’s file, be so vital as to hold up a tenure
process? It needs to be emphasized that there are no letters of warning,
letters of discipline or letters of reprimand contained in Heidi’s “personal
file”. If these complaints were so serious, why did the Administration not deal
with these complaints in a serious manner? Further, why should a handful of
complaints from a select group of students outweigh all of the input from
students found in the very large number of student evaluations submitted by
Heidi in her tenure dossier, as well as the yearly peer evaluations she
submitted?
The
Administration would have us believe that the President Smith’s unprecedented
step in simply refusing to proceed with a tenure process is justified because
of the “unprofessional conduct” on the part of Heidi in dealing with students
and/or colleagues. The fact that Heidi's professional conduct was assessed and
deemed satisfactory at the level of her department, at her tenure committee
meeting and, most importantly, at the Tenure and Promotions Committee meeting,
does not seem to make a difference to President Smith or Dean Still. And,
again, if her conduct was so out of line prior to her application for tenure,
why didn’t the Administration pursue any formal process of discipline as
outlined in 24.1? Clause 24.6 explicitly states, “The College and the Union
recognizes the value of progressive discipline as a corrective to unacceptable
behaviour.” Where was the progressive discipline?
We
want to be clear that this is not an issue about a “problem” colleague – recall
that her professional conduct was deemed satisfactory by her peers as discussed
above. These actions are an attempt on the part of the Administration to
violate a colleague’s academic freedom in the classroom, on her office door and
in her research. I will address how her academic freedom is being violated in
each case.
First,
the Administration is choosing to give disproportionate weight to the opinions
of a particular handful of students, many with fundamentalist or conservative
views, in evaluating Heidi's teaching and conduct. In deciding that this
particular group of student’s views matter, rather than, say, feminist
students’ views, the Administration is itself trying to dictate the content of
what is taught in the classroom at STM. In fact, there is explicit mention in
Dean Still’s Memo of a complaint from a student in a course entitled, “Sex,
God, and Rock n’ Roll”. Note, this course was approved by the University of
Saskatchewan, indicating the merit of such a course within the Religious
Studies Department. The fact that the Administration is giving excessive weight
to fundamentalist student complaints in a course such as this, shows that the
Administration clearly has much more sympathy with the handful of
fundamentalist and conservative students views rather than with the views of
the large number of students that enjoyed the course (as indicated with the
student evaluations submitted by Heidi in her tenure dossier). Even now, the
Administration is trying to stop Heidi from teaching, even though she has not
been denied tenure. Since the Administration should know that this absence from
teaching will negatively impact her professionally and will be detrimental to
the financial interests of the College and program interests of her department,
the Administration is making it a priority to keep her (and her views) out of
the classroom. This action is a violation of academic freedom, and, in
particular, clause 3.1 i) the freedom “...to examine, to question, teach and
learn”, as well as clause 3.1 ii) the freedom “...to disseminate his/her
opinions on questions related to his/her discipline both inside and outside the
classroom.”
Second,
the Administration wanted Heidi out of her office with materials on her door
removed. The materials included a “Positive Spaces” poster, a “Pope on a Rope”
and a Jesus action figure - the latter two items, incidentally, having been
gifts given to her in response to her teaching academic materials specifically
related to Religion and Popular Culture. This demand to remove material from
her door and window supports the conclusion that it is
fundamentalist/conservative religious view that matters in the Administration’s
opinion and not other people’s views. You may not like or approve of the
materials displayed on Heidi’s door. You may not get her sense of humor or
appreciate her sense of irony. But freedom of expression in University
necessarily involves toleration. If we only allowed views to be expressed that
are “approved of” or “liked” by the Administration, then we simply would not
have academic freedom at the College. Clause 3.1 ii) states that members have a
right to disseminate opinions on questions related to her discipline both
inside and outside the classroom. Heidi teaches in the Religious Studies
Department and has a right to express her opinions related to Religious Studies
inside and outside the classroom. The fact that the Administration has decided
to place as a condition for the continuation of her pay and benefits that Heidi
remove materials from her door (a condition that is not put on any other
faculty member) has made it clear that their actions constitute a violation of
her academic freedom.
As
an Executive, we want to be clear that we will defend members, whether
left-leaning or conservative-leaning, who are asked to remove materials from
their door because the Administration did not agree or like those views. We
will defend a member’s right to academic freedom, regardless of whether or not
we happen to agree or like his or her views.
Finally,
the Administration’s emphasis on fundamentalist and conservative religious
views raises rather serious questions for us about how they are assessing
Heidi’s research interests that include the area of Queer Theory. Clause 3.1
iii) explicitly states that members have the right to “...carry out research
which he/she believes will enhance knowledge” and 3.1 iv) states that members
have a right “...to express the results of such research in a reasonable
manner.” These clauses of the Collective Agreement apply to all faculty
including tenure track faculty. Heidi is an accomplished researcher as attested
to by the decision of her tenure committee, the three external reviewers, and
the Tenure and Promotions Committee itself. However, this fact seems to have so
little bearing on the Administration’s actions that it raises very serious
questions of whether the Administration is disregarding peer-evaluated research
simply because they do not agree with it. Is the Administration also attempting
to get rid of a faculty member because of the research she does? Given the
Administration’s actions in this case, which seem so entirely disproportionate
to the actual events, we can come to no other conclusion than that their
actions constitute a violation of the academic freedom of Dr. Heidi Epstein.
It
is the Executive’s opinion that Heidi’s case is not about concerns regarding
her conduct but rather her case is about the Administration attempting to get
rid of a faculty member because of her views, her teaching and the research she
does. The actions of this administration constitute a violation of academic
freedom.
4.
Grievances
a)
The Union has recently filed a new grievance regarding the stated intention of
the administration to set out preconditions prior to allowing Dr. Epstein to
teach her normal teaching load. In the opinion of the Union, these
preconditions constitute discipline without cause and hence we have grieved.
b)
The Union had previously received the message that the administration wished to
settle a grievance regarding President’s Smith refusal to forward a
recommendation of the Tenure and Promotions Committee. However, their actions
leading to the above grievance along with their stalling by waiting the outcome
of the judicial review indicate no interest in settling the outstanding
grievance. Thus the Union has rescinded its agreement to an abeyance of the
grievance involving the President being unwilling to follow the terms of the
Collective Agreement. Thus, we are heading toward another arbitration.
5.
The Union has applied to CAUT’s Academic Freedom Fund to cover the costs we
have incurred and will continue to incur in dealing with the violation of Dr.
Epstein’s academic freedom.
6. I am pleased to announce that James Turk,
Executive Director of CAUT, will be here on May 26, 2010 at 10:00 am to present
a talk entitled “Academic Freedom Under Attack”. He will present in 344B STM –
all members of the College and university are invited to attend.
|
posted Feb 27, 2010 8:26 AM by Bryan Wiebe
STM Faculty Union
Newsletter
February 24, 2010
Greetings!
We hope that your term is progressing
well. We wish to take this opportunity to provide you with some reminders and
an update of union activities, issues and announcements. We did have a
busy fall term, but we did not send out a newsletter as we were constantly
anticipating more news to be able to pass on. We are now at a point where we
can no longer delay. Our web page: http://www.stmfu.ca/.
Reminders:
· Our
Collective Agreement ends on June 30th of this year. Our Negotiating Committee is Brian Chartier,
Chris Foley and Bryan Wiebe. Any suggestions or issues for the new contract are
welcome and appreciated.
· Sessionals
interested in applying for seniority should note the following:
Sessional Lecturers shall be responsible for
arranging student evaluations for each of the courses they teach while in the
probationary period. Failure on the part of the Sessional Lecturer to arrange
for adequate student evaluations shall be grounds to withhold seniority. (from
Article 5.1.10.8.2.3)
· Sessional
Positions for next year will be advertised in June. In some departments, there may be significant
changes in the number of courses available for sessional faculty due to new
hirings and changes in the number of course offerings.
We want to emphasize that all members of the
Union have the right to consult with the Union about any matter concerning your
employment with the college. Please feel free to contact a member of the
Executive with any concerns you might have.
The Union respects the confidentiality of our members.
Issues:
1.
Arbitrations
and Judicial Reviews
Previously,
the Union Executive had indicated that we would be providing further
information to members about the fairly recent Arbitration Board decision. The
Executive felt very strongly that it owed members an explanation, especially
given the financial cost of this decision. To date, this decision has cost the
Union about $18,000, mostly in lawyer's fees (and it has certainly cost the
College at least this amount as well).
It is important to show what implications this decision has for our
members.
However, we were somewhat surprised
to learn that the STM Administration intended to pursue the difficult and
costly course of a judicial appeal of this decision, given some of the
statements made by the President of STM.
Firstly, President Smith made a number of statements during his own
reappointment process, statements expressing his intentions and desire to re-establish
a collaborative dialogue and open relationship with the Union. A legal course of action here hardly seemed
in keeping with these expressed intentions.
Secondly, President Smith’s initial, public response to the Board
decision gave us the impression that Administration would most likely accept
its decision and move forward to work collaboratively with the Union. In his email, dated November 26th, 2009,
President George Smith stated, “The decision found in favour of both the Union
and the Employer on different issues, and neither the Union nor the Employer
were fully successful in the positions taken before the Arbitration Board.” If we are to take the President at his word
here, President Smith's implicit recognition of the balanced nature of the
decision by the Arbitration Board makes a costly appeal seem imprudent. Our Union President met with President Smith
on a number of occasions to try to understand why they would pursue such a
difficult and costly legal course of action and to attempt to convince the
Administration to reconsider this course of action. However, the STM Administration is after all
proceeding with judicial appeal of this decision. Thus, even more than before, we owe our
members an explanation of the nature of the grievance.
This
grievance is known as a “policy” grievance. The issue is not directly about a
specific action undertaken by the Administration, but about a policy that the
Administration has implemented in the past and intends to implement in the
future. The policy involves how to store and use personnel information from the
“Dean’s file” as opposed to the personnel information contained in the
“Personal file” (and, yes, that is the spelling in the Agreement - we need to
change that). The Administration believes that any personnel information
contained in the Dean’s file can and should be used in cases of tenure and
promotion, in addition to information contained in the “Personal” file. It
seems to be the Administration's view that it would be entirely up to the
discretion of the Dean what to put in a faculty member's Dean's file and
whether or not to use personnel information from the Dean’s file. It is our view,
as a Union Executive, that this policy is in violation of the Collective
Agreement, since the Agreement is clear on the point that only personnel
information from the “Personal” file can and should be used in future cases of
tenure and promotion.
The issue
may seem like a mere dispute over location of information, but much more is at
stake for our members if this policy was deemed acceptable. In our Agreement,
there is no mention of a “Dean’s File”. As a result, there are no agreed upon
rules for how personnel information from the Dean’s file (like complaints from
students and other faculty members) is entered, retained and used. In other
words, members have no right under the Agreement to examine the information
contained in the Dean's file. They have no right to be notified that the
information (like complaints from students or other faculty members) even
exists in the Dean's file. The member does not have a right under the Agreement
to place a response to any complaints and reprimands in the Dean’s file. For
example, false, frivolous, and even malicious complaints may be put into a
faculty member's files without notification and without an opportunity to
respond to such complaints. Further,
there are no rules or procedures for how long complaints and reprimands may be
stored in the Dean’s file and no rules for how long such information can be
used by the Dean. There are certainly no
rules specifying what information from the Dean’s file can be used by the Dean
in cases of tenure and promotion. (Apparently, this is entirely up to the
discretion of the Dean and the member may only be notified a few weeks prior to
the meeting of the Tenure and Promotions Committee.) Of particular concern is
the complete absence of rules to stop anonymous student complaints from the
Dean’s file being used in tenure and promotion cases. However, there are agreed
upon rules for personnel information found in the “Personal” file. These agreed
upon rules or procedures were negotiated by the Union and Administration and exist
in the current Agreement. Thus, what is at stake are the basic rules of
fairness and due process that members have under the Agreement regarding the
storage and use of personnel information.
Although it
is clear that the Union was successful in the Arbitration decision, it is also
true that the Arbitration Board decision was balanced and moderate. Although
the Board did find that only personnel information found in the “personal” file
could be used in cases of tenure and promotion, the decision itself imposes
very little burden on the Employer that was not already there before. After
all, procedures exist by which the Dean may enter personnel information into a
person’s personal file. The Dean may
then use any personnel information contained in a person’s personal file in
future cases of tenure and promotion. The only burden on the employer is to
update the "personal" files (which the employer was obligated to do
before) and to inform faculty that complaints or reprimands are being entered
into the file in order to give the faculty member an opportunity to place a
response into the file. In other words, the only thing this decision prevents
the Dean from doing is blind-siding a member at the last moment before a Tenure
and Promotions Committee meeting with unexpected complaints from students
and/or other faculty members. Surely, it is in both the Administration’s
interest and our members’ interest for people to know, in advance, if there are
complaints of this sort in order to make improvements in teaching or conduct,
or in the working environment of the College, generally.
Because the decision of the
Arbitration Board was so moderate and balanced, it is unclear to the Union
Executive why the Administration has chosen to pursue the very costly and
difficult road of judicial review. Although we can only speculate about the
Administration's motives, we do know two main consequences of the
Administration's decision.
First, this decision will cost the
Union (as well as the College) a great deal of money. While the College may
have great financial resources for such things (and, on a positive note, this
may bode well for our upcoming negotiations), our resources as a Union are
quite limited. Although the Union
Executive will pursue other avenues for financial support (and CAUT has already
indicated that it may be able to provide such support), we may need to consider
raising the mill rate or the feasibility of maintaining such a small union with
such limited resources. Perhaps being part of a bigger union would better
enable us to protect the basic rights of our members. This is a discussion we could consider as a
Union in the upcoming year.
Second, we also know that the
Administration stated its intention to further delay a member’s tenure
decision, a tenure process that has already been delayed for over a year, until
this judicial appeal has been resolved.
The tenure process is a very stressful process and this delay is
exacting a considerable toll on the union member concerned. We cannot see how
the Administration could possibly justify delaying this tenure process any
further than it already has, especially knowing the emotional harm it imposes
on a person. We cannot see how any
matter of principle is at stake for the Administration that justifies this delay
any further. There is no necessity that
the Administration leave the fate of a person hanging in the balance while this
arduous and often tedious legal process runs its course; this is their choice. One might well ask how this choice fits with
our College’s mission of enabling “people to come to the full measure of their
humanity”.
If you have any questions regarding
the issues raised in this newsletter, please feel free to contact any member of
the Union Executive.
2.
When
are You an Employee? (Part 1)
STM has been moving away from the traditional collegial model towards a
regular business model in its relationship with Sessionals. An example is the
controversy surrounding office space, including access to libraries and
computer accounts. A few years ago the College proposed providing Sessionals
with just a locker and a common set of offices, so that a Sessional could work
wherever there happened to be an empty space. The Union objected to the
impracticality of setting up student appointments: “Go to the fourth floor and
knock on all the doors – disturbing everybody – until you find me.” The College
also wanted to terminate access to offices, library accounts, computer
accounts, etcetera for the summer. After resistance from the Union, they
relented on email and library accounts, but not on offices. We were told that
the offices could be rented out. Management’s main argument was: In what
regular business would someone be given access to company resources while not
actually employed by that company? The Union replied that Sessionals sometimes
needed to do work for the College outside the actual period of their contract.
Management responded by allowing Sessionals to book a room when needed to
conduct college business outside the period of their contract.
Sessionals have not been happy with
this arrangement.
So much is history. Now that we
know the model they are using, we should insist on consistency. Consider the
College’s policy on course syllabi. In many cases, preparing syllabi in the
couple of days from the beginning of the contract to the first class, when STM
(unlike the U. of S.) requires you to submit them to the Dean’s office, is
unreasonable. I suspect that most Sessionals are starting with these duties
before their contract comes into effect. Consistency means that the College
cannot require this. In what regular business could a future employee be
required to perform duties prior to the beginning of the contract? Working on the
syllabi before the contract begins amounts to unpaid labour! (On the other
hand, the CSF, who are under contract well before term begins, may be required
to work on syllabi during the summer.) Sessionals should not be chumps.
Allowing others to take advantage of you is irresponsible to your family. If
they really want the work to be complete by the first class, they should be
willing to pay you to start earlier. Perhaps you may need to quit your summer
job earlier to fulfill these duties. Why should you be working for free? When
educated people allow employers to take advantage of their education without
proper remuneration, it diminishes the value of education in the marketplace.
It sets a poor example for the students. Why should parents want to send their
kids to a college that puts chumps at the front of classes making them role
models? If you believe education to be a good thing, you should not allow this
to happen. You would do better to turn in your syllabi late.
Quotations:
God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere. -- Voltaire, (attributed)
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russell
|
posted Jun 4, 2009 9:05 AM by Bryan Wiebe
[
updated Jun 4, 2009 9:13 AM
]
New! Negotiations for a one year
extension of the current contract have been concluded successfully. A
special meeting of the STMFU will be held on June 18th at 9:00 a.m. in
STM 450 to ratify the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) spelling out the
details of this extension. The details are available here: MOA June 09.pdf |
posted Apr 2, 2009 11:11 AM by Bryan Wiebe
[
updated Feb 27, 2010 8:25 AM
]
Greetings!
We hope that your term is progressing well. We
wish to take this opportunity to provide you with some reminders and an update
of union activities, issues and announcements. We would like to begin by
announcing we are developing a new website.
If you have any suggestions for additions or links for our new website,
please contact Bryan Wiebe.
Reminders:
· Our
Collective Agreement ends on June 30th of this year. We have already received some suggestions for
changes or additions to our Collective Agreement, and any additional
suggestions are always welcome and appreciated
· According
to the MOA, Sessionals having seniority should have received a letter from the
Dean stating their areas of teaching qualification by Dec. 1, 2008. If you
disagreed with that letter you should have notified the Dean within two months
of receiving that letter.
· Sessionals
interested in applying for seniority should note the following:
Sessional Lecturers shall be responsible for
arranging student evaluations for each of the courses they teach while in the
probationary period. Failure on the part of the Sessional Lecturer to arrange
for adequate student evaluations shall be grounds to withhold seniority. (from
Article 5.1.10.8.2.3)
· Sessional
Positions for next year will be advertised in June. In some departments, there may be significant
changes in the number of courses available for sessional faculty due to new
hirings and changes in the number of course offerings.
· We
want to emphasize that all members of the Union have the right to consult with
the Union about any matter concerning your employment with the college. Please
feel free to contact a member of the Executive with any concerns you might
have. The Union respects the
confidentiality of our members.
· Since
our last newsletter, we have been busy working behind the scenes on behalf of
individual members regarding matters which must remain private. Some of these matters, with much effort and
time on the part of members of the Executive, have been resolved
satisfactorily; other matters have not yet been resolved. At times, the Executive has been meeting
weekly (and sometimes many times per week) to deal with such matters. It is our hope that members feel that they
are not alone in dealing with problems that may arise at the College.
Issues:
·
The USFA has signed a Memorandum of Agreement
with the U. of S. extending their Collective Agreement for one year. Clearly,
this is an option we should consider for our own Agreement. Jim Cheeseman has described the provisions of
their MoA as follows:
The terms of the Agreement remain unchanged, except
for the following:
- all members of the bargaining unit will receive a 5.25% scale increase to
their salaries
- floors, ceilings, and CDIs will increase by 5.25% for all ranks
- the Accountable Professional Expense Allowance will be increased to $2050 per
annum
- the size of the merit pool at the College level will be increased by 40 CDIs.
http://www.usaskfaculty.ca/news/read.php/298
They have also agreed to enter into talks on a number of
issues including: “alternative faculty appointments” and “retirement”. The
actual MoA is available at the following link:
(http://www.usask.ca/hrd/memos/docs/usfa_moa_ca_extension_feb_13_09.pdf ) If you have any
comments or concerns about this kind of option for us, please feel free to
contact a member of our Executive.
·
The negotiations regarding the future of the CSF
are continuing. The Administration is
determined to implement its plan to “reduce” the number of CSF positions to
zero and increase tenured faculty to 40, and the Administration has reaffirmed
its determination to implement this plan even in light of potential problems
that may occur in the economy. It has
become clear to us that the CSF are becoming more upset and discouraged as time
moves forward without any resolution of the uncertainty attached to their employment
futures. One strong sentiment that has been expressed to us is the feeling of
betrayal. Most of the CSF have voluntarily contributed to the College in many
ways above and beyond the strict fulfillment of their duties, only
to discover now that their commitment and dedication to the College seems to
count for nothing but empty platitudes. This
commitment has not been reciprocated. We
think it is fair to say that for many CSF, the lack of recognition and respect
for this commitment to the College over many years is the main source of
bitterness. The Union Executive hopes
that ongoing negotiations will result not only in a just settlement, but also in some acknowledgment on the part
of Administration of the many years of dedication and some acknowledgement of
the significant contributions which the CSF have made to the College and its
students.
·
In the January 12th report to the Board, the
President of our College states regarding upcoming negotiations:
New Board members should be aware
that we have been through a difficult period of labour
relations in the last two years, which included a trip to the Labour
Relations Board over an Unfair Labour
Practice committed by our Union. The Labour
Relations Board found strongly in favour of
management and censored the Union. This did not improve relations. Our recent
decision to eliminate 15 Continuing Sessional Faculty is also a source of great
consternation from many within the Union. We will soon begin negotiations for a
new Collective Agreement; the current Agreement concludes on June 30, 2009.
Challenges will abound.
Although it is clear that the elimination of 15 Continuing
Sessional Faculty is much more than a source of "consternation" for
us, we must also take issue with the comments regarding the Labour Relations
Board's decision. We want to remind our
members that the issue in the Labour Relations Board hearing was whether there
was undue influence in a ratification vote held by the Union. We believed that the ratification vote was
valid and that our members were not unduly influenced in their decision.
It is true that the Labour Relations Board sided with management though
hardly "strongly" and without "censor" or censure (the
ruling is available in its entirety at http://www.stmfu.ca/archives). The Board found that a second ratification
vote should be held. The fact that the
second ratification vote had the same result as the first (and thus, brought us
both back to exactly the same point where we were before the Labour Relations
Board hearing) is hardly a victory for anyone besides the lawyers on both sides
who, at least, received remuneration for their efforts. Although we acknowledge that improved
relations were not a result of the Labour Relations Board hearing and decision,
we also believe that improved relations are best achieved through direct
discussion aimed at mutual understanding.
Announcements:
We want to
congratulate Chris Foley who has been elected to a three-year term on the
Executive of the Union. He was elected
by acclamation, and his statement has been circulated. We also want to thank the members of the
STMFU Elections Committee (David Peacock and Darrell McLaughlin) for conducting
this election.
Quotable Quotes
on Unions and Workers:
From Laborem Exercens, John Paul II, 1981:
"Catholic
social teaching does not hold that unions are no more than a reflection of the
"class" structure of society and that they are a mouthpiece for a
class struggle which inevitably governs social life. They are indeed a mouthpiece for the
struggle for social justice, for the just rights of working people in
accordance with their individual professions." (See Part III, section 20 "Importance of
Unions").
"But here it must be emphasized, in general terms, that the person
who works desires not only due remuneration for his work; he also
wishes that, within the production process, provision be made for him to be
able to know that in his work, even on something that is owned in
common, he is working "for himself". This awareness is extinguished within him in
a system of excessive bureaucratic centralization, which makes the worker feel
that he is just a cog in a huge machine moved from above, that he is for more
reasons than one a mere production instrument rather than a true subject of
work with an initiative of his own. The
Church's teaching has always expressed the strong and deep conviction that
man's work concerns not only the economy but also, and especially, personal
values." (see Part III, section 15
"The Personalist Argument")
"It is always to be hoped that, thanks to the work of their unions,
workers will not only have more, but above all be more; in other words, that they will realize their
humanity more fully in every respect."
(See Part III, section 20 "Importance of Unions").
|
posted Feb 23, 2009 7:08 PM by Bryan Wiebe
[
updated Apr 2, 2009 11:11 AM
]
October 28, 2008
STM Newsletter
Faculty
Union
WELCOME
The new term is well underway and the STMFU Executive wishes to welcome
new members and welcome back all members. We hope that everyone has had
a good summer. We are confident you will have a fruitful year of
research and instruction.
The
past year was full of challenges for the union. Thanks to the strength
of our members we have come through these struggles with a new
collective agreement (you should have received a copy in your mailbox)
and, hopefully, a heightened respect for each other. Of course not all
problems have been solved. New, and especially for some of our members,
particularly difficult challenges have arisen. We will be working to
bring about as good an outcome as possible for these members. In these
times, we hope that all members will demonstrate the care for which the
STM community is renowned and encourage those members which are under
threat at this time. A demoralized community would be a weakened
community. We believe it is particularly important that we build each
other up to empower one another to meet the challenges ahead. Given our
members’ particularly strong talents, courage and caring concern, the
executive is confident that our current difficulties will only serve to
make us stronger.
Executive Activities
The
executive is pleased to welcome Chris Foley to the executive. Although
Chris is on sabbatical, he has agreed to serve on the executive this
year. (This was an executive appointment as there was a resignation
after the elections were held last spring.) The executive is committed
to serving the membership. We have been consulting with CSF in an
attempt to determine how best to bargain for their needs. We have
formed an “ad hoc CSF committee” consisting of Ria Jenkins and Brian
Chartier to negotiate these matters with administration. All members
are encouraged to continue to raise issues of concern with the
executive.
Update on Defense Fund Trustees Annual Meeting
The
Union Executive would like to thank David McGrane, our STMFU CAUT
Defense Fund Trustee, for attending the CAUT Defence Fund Trustees
Annual General Meeting held in Fredericton, New Brunswick on October 18
th-19 th, 2008. The written report from David was particularly
important in clarifying how the Fund works and how much it costs. David
also gave us some favourable impressions of the organization and the
meeting, as well as relating some possible union-related storm clouds
on the horizon. David did point out some outstanding issues in relation
to our membership in the fund. It is our hope that we will deal with
these outstanding issues at our next general meeting.
Committees
The executive wishes to thank all those who have agreed to serve on STMFU committees.
| Elections Committee:
* Darrell McLaughlin
* David Peacock | Consultation Committee:
* Brian Chartier
* Ria Jenkins
* Bryan Wiebe | Grievance Committee:
* Wilf Denis
* Ron Griffin | | Sessional Faculty and Term Appointees Committee:
* Nick Jesson
* Dawn Friel-Hipperson | Status of Women Advisory:
* Mary Ann Beavis | ad hoc CSF Committee:
* Brian Chartier
* Ria Jenkins | | Executive Committee:
* Brian Chartier (President)
* Ria Jenkins (Vice-President / Secretary)
* Bryan Wiebe (Treasurer)
* Chris Foley | | |
|
|