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
