|
|
Rédacteur / Editor: Frans De
Bruyn, département d'English Department
Vol 00-01, 21 janvier / 21 January 2000
|
RAPPORT
DU PRÉSIDENT Premièrement
j’aimerais souhaiter à tous les membres de l’APUO en mon nom et
celui des membres du Comité exécutif, une Bonne et Heureuse Année,
santé et prospérité. Avant
de faire mon rapport sur les différents sujets qui nous ont préoccupé
depuis les six dernier mois, j’aimerais exprimer ma reconnaissance
aux membres impliqués au sein de l’Association et tout spécialement
ceux et celles impliquées au Comité exécutif, au Conseil
d’administration et aux divers comités de l’APUO. J’aimerais
remercier Francis Reardon pour son travail en tant d’agent de
liaison; Frans de Bruyn for his editorial work on the Bulletin; John
Henderson, Renata Green, Ann Fortin-Riley and Manon Charette for
their hard work for the Association on different issues. 1.
Anomalies The
1998-2001 collective agreement provides for an anomalies fund of
$150,000 in 1998-99, $30,000 in 1999-2000, and $30,000 in 2000-2001.
The funds were to be allocated initially for group or market
anomalies, first to SITE but not to exclude other potential groups.
Funds not used for group anomalies would be used for individual
anomalies. Since
last June, the Anomalies Committee (composed of APUO
representatives: Antoine Morin and Catherine Bielajew, employer
representatives: Michel Beillard and Gilles Patry, and Raymond
St-Jacques, non-voting chair of the Committee) held several meetings
to deal with the distribution of the group anomalies. The review of
group anomalies for 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 is now complete and the
Committee will begin its review of requests for individual anomalies
for members. Because the employer has not yet provided the salary
data for librarians, counsellors and language teachers, the APUO
representatives on the Committee are being asked to ensure that
requests from any of those individuals are given due consideration
and, in addition, that the salary review for these groups be the
first order of priority for the 2000-2001 anomalies process. I
would like to remind members that they have until 28 January to
submit a request for a review of your salary. 2.
Congé parental Il
avait été déclaré que la disposition sur congé parental à
l’U d’O est discriminatoire et à l’encontre du paragraphe 8.1
de la convention collective et 5(1) du Code des droits de la
personne en raison du sexe et de la situation familiale.
Compte tenu de l’entente antérieure entre l’APUO et
l’employeur, l’arbitre n’avait pas accordé les mesures de réparation,
mais il se réservait le droit d’étudier la question si l’APUO
et l’employeur ne pouvaient en arriver à une solution
mutuellement acceptable. La
réponse de l’employeur à la décision arbitrale était fort décevante.
Il proposait simplement d’éliminer complètement la
prestation supplémentaire pour les parents adoptifs. L’APUO a présenté
une demande à l’arbitre pour qu’il ordonne des mesures de réparation.
La décision de l’arbitre apparaît à la fin de ce numéro du Bulletin.
3.
Affiliations and APUO finances This
is not a new issue. Since the special levy was removed, the APUO
will eventually have to deal with the problem of dwindling finances.
About 40% of our revenue goes to affiliation dues:
CAUT $95000, OCUFA $83508, CAUT Defence Fund $49500. I
met with Deborah Flynn (president, OCUFA) and Henry Mandelbaum
(executive director, OCUFA) to explain our financial situation and
to explore the possibility of lowering the dues we pay to OCUFA.
Currently, OCUFA dues are calculated on the average salary of each
rank. This costs us a little more than if we remit based on the dues
we actually receive. We have written to OCUFA asking them to
reconsider the calculation of their dues. The matter is being
considered by OCUFA. Peter
Anderson (APUO secretary-treasurer) initiated an internal
examination within the CAUT Defence Fund re. the capping of the
Fund. The
APUO ad hoc committee on
affiliations will be studying the matter further. I am hoping that a
proposal will be presented at the next regular general meeting so
that we can deal with the APUO’s finances before the situation
becomes serious. 4.
Séances d’information New
APUO members: We
offered an information session for new APUO members. Henry Edwards,
Francis Reardon and Penny Gurney presented the most relevant
articles of the collective agreement. The session was a success if
we consider the number of attendees and their reactions. TPC members: Information
sessions were offered by Henry Edwards and Francis Reardon to both
new and experienced members of FTPCs, STPCs, and DTPCs. The purpose
was to provide information on their role as members of a TPC. The
sessions were not well attended. The latter was partly due to
timing. Next year, the sessions will be held during the summer
months. 5.
Le projet de réforme du plan de pension The
latest developments on the Pension Plan reform were reported, in
detail, in the 8 December 1999 issue of the Bulletin
(Vol. 99.11). The Board of
Governors’ decision has delayed any final decision on the Pension
Plan reform. The Board
is not scheduled to meet again until the end of March 2000 delaying
any further action on reform until well into the new year. Another
note concerning pensions: Last year, the chairman of the Board of
Governors stated that, based on a legal opinion received from the
University’s legal counsel, any member of the Board of Governors
having a financial link with the Pension Plan could be in conflict
of interest and should not vote. On the advice of APUO legal
counsel, we have asked the University to obtain an outside legal
opinion. This is being done. 6.
Association des professeurs retraités de l’Université
d’Ottawa (APRUO) La
nouvelle association (APRUO) veut être reconnue. à
la fin de janvier, les membres du comité exécutif de l’APUO
rencontreront l’exécutif de l’APRUO pour discuter du rôle de
cette association. 7.
Les statuts et règlements de l’Association. Nous
planifions de modifier les statuts et les règlements de notre
Association. Il y a deux ans, un comité s’est penché sur les
changements des statuts et des règlements. On espère soumettre les
amendements à l’assemblée générale au printemps.
PARENTAL
LEAVE BENEFITS EXTENDED Nous
avons publié dans le Bulletin
(Vol. 99.10, 4 octobre 1999) un article sur la décision de principe
de l’arbitre affirmant que la prestation de garde d’enfant prévue
à la disposition 29.2.3 de la convention collective de
l’APUO est discriminatoire et enfreint le Code des droits de la
personne dans la mesure où les parents biologiques et les parents
adoptifs sont traités différemment. La
disposition 29.2.3 prévoit un congé parental pour la mère ou le père
après la naissance d’un enfant ou à l’arrivée d’un enfant
adoptif. Ce congé
distinct s’ajoute au congé de maternité prévu pour la mère
naturelle en vertu de la disposition 29.2.1 et au congé de paternité
du père naturel en vertu de la disposition 29.2.2.
L’article prévoit un congé de 18 semaines pour les deux
parents naturels et adoptifs afin qu’ils prennent soin du nouveau-né
ou de l’enfant nouvellement adopté, mais seuls les parents
adoptifs obtiennent une rémunération de l’employeur sous forme
d’un supplément aux prestations d’assurance-emploi pouvant
atteindre 10 semaines. Voilà
la question en litige. En
vertu de la disposition 29.2.3.6, un parent adoptif obtient ce supplément
qui peut atteindre 95 % de sa rémunération.
Dans le cas des parents naturels cependant, la disposition
29.2.3.7 prévoit un congé sans rémunération et l’intéressé(e)
obtient seulement les prestations d’assurance-emploi (413 $ par
semaine au plus) au cours de la période de congé applicable. La
réponse de l’employeur à la décision arbitrale était
simplement d’éliminer complètement la prestation supplémentaire
pour les parents adoptifs. Ces
derniers et les parents naturels n’auraient plus d’autres
prestations de congé parental que celles de l’assurance-emploi. Malgré
les tentatives visant à convaincre l’employeur de changer de
position, la situation n’avait pas évolué.
L’APUO a présenté une demande à l’arbitre pour
trancher la question. Dans
la décision finale obtenue peu avant les vacances de Noël,
l’arbitre reconnait qu’à la suite de sa première décision,
l’employeur et le syndicat ont essayé de négocier, mais n’ont
pu s’entendre sur la solution.
Une autre intervention arbitrale a donc été nécessaire
pour régler l’affaire. L’arbitre
a accepté la position de l’Association et ordonné que la
prestation supplémentaire s’applique aux parents naturels. In
its submission to the arbitrator, the employer (represented by
Darryl Grandbois) argued that the arbitrator’s jurisdiction was
limited to simply declaring the current provisions of the agreement
invalid, thereby removing the benefit entirely for both groups, and
resulting in the parties having to re-negotiate the provision.
The Association, on the other hand, submitted that there was
broad remedial jurisdiction available to the arbitrator pursuant to
both the Labour Relations Act and Human Rights Code, and
supplemented by the contractual agreement between the parties.
The Association (represented by John Henderson) argued that
this broad remedial power should be exercised in a positive fashion
to extend the benefit rather than in a negative fashion.
Leaving the matter to further negotiations would be
meaningless, since the parties had already tried that route under
section 4.1.5 of the collective agreement and were at an impasse. With
respect to the question of jurisdiction, the arbitrator ruled that
the Labour Relations Act "intended that arbitrators will have
the full panoply of remedies envisaged by [the Human Rights Code] in
order to insure the effective application of these important
workplace laws.” The
arbitrator noted that once the top-up provision in question was
found to be discriminatory and in contravention of both the Human
Rights Code and section 8.1 of the collective agreement, he would
"have the statutory power to grant the remedy requested by the
Association.” The arbitrator then referred to portions of the collective
agreement itself which also supported this remedial authority and
concluded that "there are both contractual and statutory
foundations to the arbitral authority to entertain and act on the
Association’s request if judged appropriate to do so. .... The
issue therefore becomes whether the adoption leave top up benefit
should be extended to biological parents or nullified to achieve the
requisite equality.” After
reviewing the parties’ respective positions, the arbitrator
adopted the Association’s principal argument that the remedial
nature of human rights legislation is such that it should be applied
so as to advance the broad underlying policy considerations.
"On the basis of this approach, boards of inquiry and
boards of arbitration have brought the provisions of collective
agreements into conformity with statutes by adding to or varying
those agreements. ... When parties bargain in the shadow of human
rights legislation, they are on notice that work place
discrimination will be dealt by arbitrators in a manner consistent
with human rights legislation. .... To deny the grievor access to a
like top up benefit and, instead, nullify the right which was
accorded adoptive parents would be insensitive to the policy of
equality underlying human rights legislation. .... In effect, a
negative remedy seems to punish only those who are to be protected
by this 'almost constitutional’ workplace legislation.
Accordingly, the positive remedy of expanding the top up
benefit to biological parents is to be preferred in the
circumstances of this case.” The
employer had also argued, in the alternative, that if the benefit
was to be extended, then the Association should be jointly liable
for related costs, given that it had been party to the negotiations
which created the discriminatory benefit in the first place.
After reviewing the history of the matter, the arbitrator
rejected the employer’s position and ruled that "the
Association’s liability or joint liability would not be
appropriate in these circumstances.
It was not the equivalent of a co-conspirator.” As
a result of the arbitration award, the top-up benefit available to
adoptive parents under 29.2.3.6 is now also available to both
biological parents, with the benefit available to the biological
mother after the maternity leave period is concluded.
The words in 29.2.3.6 and 29.2.3.7 which purport to exclude
the natural parents have been ordered struck from the collective
agreement. Members
requiring further information for their own situations should
contact the APUO office. ACCESS
2000 Campaign The
Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) has organized a cross-Canada
campaign called ACCESS 2000. The
campaign is intended to raise public awareness re. post secondary
education and to demand the restoration of social programme
spending, a tuition freeze in every province, and the implementation
of a national system of grants. The associations of both graduate (GSAÉD)
and undergraduate (SFUO) students at the University of Ottawa have
committed their full participation to the campaign. A day of action
is planned for 2 February 2000. At
its meeting on 10 January 2000, the University of Ottawa Senate
passed a motion declaring 2 February 2000 a penalty-free day on
which students will not receive an academic penalty for not
attending classes. Deans will be writing to academic staff asking
that they not set exams, assignments, or make other academic demands
on that day. For more information visit : http://access2000.ath.cx · |
|
Accueil/Home |
Info |
Bulletin |
Convention/Agreement |
Annonces/Classified |
Rechercher/Search |