APUO Bulletin

Update on negotiations

Overview

From the beginning of April to the end of June, the parties have met at the main table nine times. There have also been a number of side table meetings to address more technical matters, as well as issues pertaining to librarians and language teachers.  Three other main table meetings scheduled at the end of April were cancelled by the administration for reasons outlined below.  Significant differences remain on a couple of issues, and bridging these differences is proving to be a difficult challenge.

Salaires et avantages sociaux

Les trois premières séances en avril ont porté sur les salaires et les avantages sociaux. Alors que les parties ont pu en venir à un consensus quant à l’approche générale, il ne leur a pas été possible de se mettre d’accord sur les derniers détails. Elles ont convenu que l’échelle des augmentations doit refléter les augmentations moyennes  des universités comparables pour les trois années de la convention. L’APUO considérerait qu’il s’agit d’un faible minimum pour nous garder au même niveau que nos collègues des universités comparables.  Elles ont également convenu qu’il fallait inclure un facteur de rattrapage, ajouté en partie à l’échelle et en partie à un fonds pour anomalies orienté de façon plus sélective et utilisant des données comparables de Statistique Canada. C’est précisément sur la question de la taille du fonds pour anomalies (c’est-à-dire le montant d’argent versé dans le fonds) que les parties n’ont pu s’entendre. Étant donné que ce fonds sera le principal véhicule pour régler une question récurrente relativement à la comparabilité de nos salaires, cette question est considérée comme très importante par l’APUO.

On s’entend généralement sur la nécessité de procéder à des ajustements des plafonds salariaux. Comme on l’a déjà signalé, les parties continuent d’examiner un système PDR (à augmentations échelonnées pour les nouveaux membres), tout en assurant que les membres actuels soient protégés.

En ce qui a trait aux avantages sociaux, les parties ont pu en venir à un consensus sur certaines questions, alors que d’autres demeurent problématiques. Sur la question du régime de financement des frais de scolarité, l’employeur a offert d’investir des fonds supplémentaires qui semblent couvrir les besoins dans le cadre du régime existant, et les parties ont examiné certaines mesures destinées à améliorer légèrement les montants versés aux étudiants inscrits à l’Université d’Ottawa. Sur la question du remboursement des dépenses professionnelles, (RDP), les augmentations proposées rendent possible que les montants versés atteignent un niveau qui se compare raisonnablement bien avec celui des autres universités, mais cela ne se produira seulement qu’à la troisième année de la convention (2006‑2007). Selon les augmentations qui pourront survenir ailleurs entre-temps, les augmentations proposées auront pour effet que nous continuerons d’accuser un retard d’ici là. L’APUO insiste sur une solution qui correspondrait à l’objectif commun d’établir le RDP à un niveau comparable à celui des autres universités. Des discussions ont également eu lieu quant à la nécessité d’une mise à jour du barème de l’ODA (Ontario Dental Association) utilisé pour le régime de soins dentaires, ainsi que d’une amélioration de cinq semaines de la prestation complémentaire de congé parental. Toutefois, il n’y a eu guère de consensus quant à l’amélioration du compte de dépenses en soins de la santé pour les membres qui vont prendre leur retraire, et aucune entente n’est intervenue quant à l’amélioration des prestations de ceux qui ont pris leur retraite avant 2002, année où le compte de dépenses en soins de la santé a été instauré.

The Sticking Point:  Workload and Teaching Needs

The balance of discussion at the main table has been taken up with two major normative issues:  on the APUO side, the workload/teaching load of members; and on the employer side, fulfilling the teaching needs of the University.

The discussion of teaching loads has proven difficult because of the existing benchmark in the collective agreement (1983-1985).  Data on teaching loads from that period are incomplete. There has also been some difficulty in agreeing upon the criteria for assessing these data.  Yet even with the limited data available, it does appear that when teaching is measured by criteria other than simply the teaching credits assigned, a valid argument can be made that teaching loads have gone up in some units, although not necessarily all.  The parties have discussed this issue at length and have been considering a solution that would, first, describe the various measurable factors to be taken into account (e.g. class size, student contact hours, responsibility for supervision at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, number of T.A.’s) and, second, provide for each department to undertake a review of teaching loads based on the agreed upon factors, using a benchmark period of 1992-1994. The change in the benchmark period from 1983-85 to 1992-94 is owing to the lack of data for the earlier period. If such a review in a given department were to ascertain that average teaching loads had increased since 1992-1994, downward adjustments would be made.

On the employer’s issue of how to address the teaching needs of the University, four distinct problems have been identified:  (1) the occasional need to bring in individuals with specialized skills (in particular fields such as visual arts, music, theatre, and management) for a period of time without committing to a permanent position;  (2)  recruitment problems identified in a limited number of areas where qualified PhD’s are in short supply;  (3)  difficulties hiring regular professors in the experimental sciences, when there is a limited capacity in the University of physical resources required for research support;  (4) the need to address large enrolments in what may be described as “service courses” provided by some departments in the University.

With respect to the first problem raised (specialized skills), the APUO has suggested that the current classification of “visiting professor” in 17.2.2 might be modified to allow for appointments of up to five years in specific areas identified by the parties based on evidence justifying the change .

As for the second issue (recruitment difficulties), the problem appears to be very discipline specific and quite limited in scope.  APUO has suggested that if the facts indicate a real hiring problem owing to a lack of qualified candidates in specified areas over several years, then a limited number of special five-year contracts might be considered for a restricted period of time, dependent upon the employer providing detailed evidence and proper analysis in support of its request.  APUO is awaiting further clarification with respect to facts that would justify this approach.

The problem identified by the employer in the experimental sciences has been confirmed for the most part by our members working in those areas.  After much discussion at the negotiating table, APUO has suggested a solution that would permit the hiring in these departments of a limited number of individuals whose focus of scholarly activity would be pedagogical in nature, thus alleviating the need for physical resources normally provided for experimental research.  These individuals would be eligible for tenure and promotion under the usual criteria in the collective agreement.  However, it would be important to ensure that the bodies evaluating the dossiers understand the pedagogical focus of the scholarly activity being undertaken. If implemented, the impact would be very limited, as it would be subject to a maximum within a department and would be limited to the experimental science departments identified by the parties.  Although the employer has indicated an interest in this solution, including the potential for tenure, they have expressed a concern about allowing the normal promotion system to apply.

The fourth teaching problem identified by the employer has posed the greatest challenge and prompted the lengthiest discussions.  The employer views large classes in “service courses” as a major problem and wants to hire full time individuals who are not regular professors to teach in these areas.   The employer has proposed that these individuals would be classified as replacement professors but would be hired for up to five years.  They would be assigned teaching loads in the first three years greater than the norm, since research expectation would be minimal.  In the first three years, a teaching load for such an employee could be up to 24 credits, comprised of five different courses per year.  Although earlier proposals by the employer identified ten specific departments where this would occur, the latest proposal would apply campus-wide.  The employer proposes various caps based on the numbers of APUO members in a given unit:  20% for a department, 10% for a faculty, and 10% overall.  Since APUO membership currently has about 1,000 members, the overall cap could mean a potential 100 individuals being hired into this classification.

In response, APUO has argued that the employer should be hiring more regular professors.  Indeed, APUO has explained on a number of occasions that while it could try to address the other three issues identified by the employer, this fourth one (service courses) is very problematic indeed. By April 20, because APUO had been unsuccessful in convincing the employer about the gravity of their proposal from APUO’s perspective, APUO took another approach and proposed a comprehensive study by a joint task force respecting the two major issues of workload and teaching needs, with the results to be reported on during the term of the new collective agreement.  As a result, the employer indicated that this last proposal changed everything for them, particularly since the two issues were linked, and cancelled the last three meetings scheduled in April. The employer subsequently requested that negotiations resume later in the spring with two or three sessions guided by the facilitator we had used earlier on.  These latest sessions were held at the end of June.

Notwithstanding the attendance of the facilitator, the parties have been unable to resolve this “service course” issue, although the discussions surrounding the other issues have progressed as reported above. Therefore, in an effort to better understand the impact of the employer’s proposal, APUO has requested exact details of how this type of classification would affect the delivery of service courses in the various departments envisaged by the employer.  It is expected that this information will be provided by the end of August at which point negotiations will resume.  The employer has indicated that if the parties cannot agree on this issue, then other areas currently agreed upon tentatively will be open to reconsideration, since a final settlement is subject to overall agreement on all issues.  If such an impasse is reached, it may become necessary to schedule further meetings in the fall and to return to traditional modes of bargaining following input from the APUO Collective Bargaining Committee and the Board of Directors.

Question de transparence

Une question normative qui semblait être sur le point d’être réglée est maintenant problématique. Cette question a trait à la préoccupation de l’APUO relativement au fait que des raisons suffisantes doivent être fournies lorsque le Comité Mixte rend des décisions défavorables (dans les cas de congé sabbatique, de permanence, de promotion et d’autres questions semblables). Notre bulletin de février rapportait qu’il y a eu un consensus sur une solution possible selon laquelle des éclaircissements seraient apportés à la convention collective. Plus récemment, l’employeur a fait savoir que le Comité administratif ne souhaite aucunement modifier la convention à cet égard, préférant en confier le soin à la réunion de première étape dans le cadre du processus de règlement des griefs, cadre dans lequel tous les éclaircissements seront fournis aux membres. Ce changement quant à la façon dont l’employeur voit une solution possible de la question à la table de négociation est cohérent par rapport à l’approche « négociations raisonnées », selon laquelle il est toujours entendu qu’il n’y a pas d’entente finale sur quelque question que ce soit tant qu’une entente complète n’a pas été atteinte sur toutes les questions. Toutefois, l’APUO s’inquiète de cette réaction, car cela veut dire que les membres continueront d’être tenus de déposer des griefs dans des cas où cela serait autrement inutile ou inapproprié. On s’attend à ce que les discussions se poursuivent sur cette question.