|
|
|
|
État d’avancement des négociations : mai-juin 2008 |
|
Les
négociations d’une nouvelle convention collective entre l’APUO et
l’employeur ont commencé en fait le 1er mai 2008. Les deux
parties se sont rencontrées chaque jeudi en mai et juin et il y a eu
neuf séances de négociation au total jusqu’à maintenant. L’animateur des
discussions, Bruce Hamilton, a aidé les parties. Ces dernières se sont
engagées à négocier pendant sept autres journées au cours de l’été, soit
du 28 juillet au 1er août et du 18 au 22 août.
Bruce Hamilton animera aussi ces réunions estivales. Les dates en
automne sont déterminées provisoirement. |
Negotiations for a
new collective agreement between the APUO and the employer began in
earnest on 1 May 2008. The two sides have met on every Thursday in May
and June, making a total of nine negotiating sessions so far. The sides
have been assisted by Bruce Hamilton, who has acted as a facilitator of
the discussions. The sides are committed to seven further days of
negotiation during the summer, in the weeks of 28 July-1 August and
18-22 August. These summer meetings will also be facilitated by Bruce
Hamilton. Dates for the fall have also been tentatively scheduled. |
|
Il a
été convenu au début que chaque partie présenterait trois principaux
enjeux à la table qui seraient considérés selon l’approche raisonnée
intégrale de la négociation. Les autres enjeux seraient traités selon un
modèle raisonné abrégé. Le modèle raisonné intégral des négociations
comprend une série d’étapes qui doivent aider à trouver des solutions
mutuellement avantageuses. Voici ces étapes : |
It was agreed at the outset that each side would bring three major issues to the table to be handled using the full interest-based approach to bargaining. The remaining issues would be handled under an abbreviated interest-based model. The full interest-based model of negotiation involves a series of steps intended to facilitate arriving at mutually beneficial solutions. These steps are as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pendant les réunions en mai et juin, les six principaux enjeux que les
deux parties ont identifiés ont été présentés à la table et il y a eu
progrès relatif du processus décrit ci‑dessus. Deux enjeux en sont
encore aux étapes de la discussion initiale, mais les deux parties ont
convenu d’un énoncé de problème pour les quatre autres enjeux. Voici ces
quatre enjeux : 1) transition vers la retraite, 2) climat de travail,
3) processus de promotion et de permanence et 4) processus des griefs et
des mesures disciplinaires. Dans le cas de la transition vers la
retraite et des processus de promotion et de permanence, les parties ont
procédé à une discussion préliminaire (séance de remue-méninges) des
solutions éventuelles. |
During the May-June
meetings, all six of the major issues identified by the two sides have
been introduced at the table, and varying degrees of progress has been
achieved in the process outlined above. Two issues have not as yet
progressed beyond the initial discussion stages, but with the other four
issues the two sides have agreed upon a problem statement. These four
issues are: (1) Transition to Retirement, (2) Work Climate, (3) Tenure
and Promotion Process, and (4) Grievances and Disciplinary Processes. In
the case of Transition to Retirement and Tenure and Promotion Processes,
the parties have proceeded to a preliminary discussion (brainstorming)
of potential solutions. |
|
Des
détails sur chacun de ces six enjeux sont publiés dans le numéro du
Bulletin de mai 2008. Dans le cas des quatre enjeux à l’étape de
« l’énoncé du problème », les points suivants peuvent être soulignés : |
Details about each of these six issues can be found in the May 2008 issue of the Bulletin. In terms of the four issues that have reached the “problem statement” stage, the following points can be underscored: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
La
réunion du 19 juin a été réservée aux enjeux particuliers aux
bibliothécaires. Il y a eu une première discussion des enjeux, en
particulier la charge de travail des bibliothécaires et le processus de
promotion actuel. Des faits ont été échangés et il y aura une autre
collecte de données. Les deux parties ont aussi convenu de prévoir
d’autres réunions à cette fin en août et septembre. |
The 19 June meeting
was devoted to issues particular to librarians. An initial discussion
of issues took place, particularly on the subject of the workload of
librarians and the promotion process currently in place. Some facts
have been exchanged, and further data will be collected. The two sides
also agreed to schedule further meetings for this purpose in August and
September. |
|
Il est
trop tôt pour prévoir les résultats des discussions en cours. La
négociation est un processus dynamique, ce qui est accompli dans un
secteur peut très bien déterminer les solutions et l’évolution dans un
autre. Il est donc difficile à cette étape de donner un compte rendu du
succès des négociations dans l’ensemble. Il y aura sans doute
d’importantes différences à régler pour certains enjeux. |
It is too early to predict what the outcome of the discussions currently underway will be. A negotiation is a dynamic process, in which solutions and movement in one area may well depend on what is achieved in another area. So it is difficult at this stage to give a prognosis on the overall success of negotiations. There will, no doubt, be significant differences to overcome on some issues. |
|
Une décision arbitrale annule une mesure disciplinaire en partie |
|
Dans le numéro du Bulletin du 12 février 2008, l’APUO mentionne le cas d’une lettre de réprimande de la Faculté des sciences. Le doyen de la Faculté des sciences a envoyé une lettre de réprimande à un membre parce que l'employeur considérait inapproprié le télécharge d'un cours sur un site internet personnel pendant l'automne de 2005. La lettre de réprimande spécifiait que, sur le site Web, le professeur avait: ... publicisé le cours ... en l'annonçant comme un nouveau cours, comme un cours bilingue, sous un titre différent du titre approuvé par le Sénat universitaire, et avec un contenu radicalement différent du contenu auquel on est en droit de s'attendre sur la base de la description officielle du cours... Le membre (professeur Rancourt) a déposé un grief et l’Association s’en est chargée en arbitrage. Le cas a été entendu et conclu en décembre. La décision de l’arbitre Michel Picher vient d’arriver. Elle permet le grief, en partie, en retirant la lettre de réprimande remise au professeur Rancourt en ce qui a trait à sa description du cours et de la matière, y compris les initiatives pédagogiques du professeur. Tous ces points sont considérés comme des éléments de la liberté universitaire du professeur et, quant à la matière, ils ne sont pas si différents du cours que le Sénat a en fait approuvé. La réprimande est cependant maintenue parce que le professeur Rancourt a annoncé erronément que le cours est bilingue, mais c’est officiellement un cours en français, et il a ajouté que c’est un cours de niveau supérieur, ce qui est faux. Arbitrator Picher described the issue as follows: What this grievance and arbitration are about is whether Professor Rancourt exceeded the bounds of academic freedom and his duty to the University and his students by the content of his website postings developed for PHY 1703 as it was to be given in the fall of 2005. In so framing the issue the Arbitrator recognizes that a component of academic freedom is the latitude of a professor to communicate with his or her students without undue interference from the University. In the advancement of their research and teaching professors may well resort to imaginative, innovative and even provocative statements and communications to their students. To the extent that such statements are not unlawful, or materially false and misleading, they should generally have the protection of academic freedom. In discussing the bounds of academic freedom, Arbitrator Picher expressed the view that: While it is clear that academic freedom does not extend to allowing a professor to introduce changes which effectively contradict or radically depart from the fundamental concept of the course as originally established, there must be some latitude for flexibility both as to the teaching methods and specific content of the course. Arbitrator Picher then reviewed the evidence and came to the following conclusions: In the result, the grievance must be allowed, in part. The Arbitrator finds and declares that the University did have just cause to issue a written reprimand to Professor Rancourt for having, on his personal website, incorrectly described PHY 1703 both as a bilingual course and as a graduate course. Professor Rancourt knew, or reasonably should have known, that to describe PHY 1703 in those terms was incorrect. Given the sensitive nature of the University as a bilingual institution, and the importance of protecting its integrity as a degree granting body in graduate studies, both of those inaccuracies were of substantial and legitimate concern to the University. For the reasons related above, however, the Arbitrator cannot sustain the position of the University that the actions of Professor Rancourt, in respect of his publicizing PHY 1703 in the fall of 2005, gave just cause for discipline insofar as the description of the course and course content is concerned. As noted above, the course content remained relatively the same as it had been in years previous, the major change being with respect to the pedagogical innovation of independent group studies, the involvement of the students themselves in identifying areas of interest and the introduction of the satisfactory/not-satisfactory grading system. The Arbitrator is satisfied that those pedagogical initiatives were legitimately within the purview of the academic freedom enjoyed by Professor Rancourt, and most importantly that they did not contradict or materially depart from the description or purpose of PHY 1703 as conceived and approved by the Senate of the University on May 24, 1995. The Arbitrator has given some consideration to whether this is an appropriate case to exercise the discretion conferred upon the Arbitrator to reduce the measure of discipline, notwithstanding the finding that the University did have just cause to act. That discretion, which is provided to the Arbitrator under the terms of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, is one to be exercised advisedly, with close regard to both mitigating and aggravating factors. Certainly a major mitigating factor in the case at hand is the settlement which the parties themselves reached by executing the Memorandum of Agreement as signed on September 28, 2005. From a certain viewpoint, that document would indicate that the University essentially achieved what it needed, by obtaining the assurances of Professor Rancourt that fundamental science concepts would be taught, principally using his book Science of Activists, that it would be taught in French and that the course descriptions on “Alternative Voices” would be removed. Given those corrective actions, was it necessary for the University to go further, by issuing its letter of reprimand? After careful reflection the Arbitrator is compelled to conclude that the University did need to get its position on the record and that it is not appropriate to direct that the letter of reprimand be entirely withdrawn. The reason for that conclusion is that there appears to be no recognition, certainly no articulated admission, on the part of Professor Rancourt that he did anything wrong. At no point in the proceedings can the Arbitrator identify a point at which Professor Rancourt expresses recognition that he was incorrect in publicly describing PHY 1703 as a bilingual course, or that his description in that regard in “Alternative Voices” was clearly contrary to his own description made on the Department’s website, where the course is acknowledged as being a French language course. Nor is the Arbitrator impressed with Professor Rancourt’s apparent indifference at having stated publicly that “the plan” is to offer the course in English in alternate years when in fact that concept is nothing more than a hope or intention in the back of his own mind. Additionally, the evidence before the Arbitrator is without any indication on the part of Professor Rancourt that he believed it to be misleading or incorrect to describe PHY 1703 as a graduate course. While Professor Rancourt is obviously possessed of a fine and discerning mind, these misrepresentations with respect to PHY 1703 are not nuances that are difficult to grasp. The grievor’s failure to acknowledge that he was wrong in so misrepresenting the course, whether on a personal website or otherwise, is a cause for concern that the Arbitrator cannot responsibly disregard. For these reasons I do not consider that the written reprimand issued by the University should be entirely withdrawn. The Arbitrator therefore directs that the University redraft the letter of reprimand placed on Professor Rancourt’s record. The redrafted letter of reprimand shall identify Professor Rancourt’s description of PHY 1703 as being a bilingual course, which is planned to be available as an English course in alternate years, and a graduate course as incorrect and misleading statements which are damaging to the University’s legitimate interests. The letter of reprimand shall, however, have removed from it any reference to Professor Rancourt’s communications being false or misleading with respect to the content of the course itself. |
|
OCCASIONAL INDIVIDUAL ADJUSTMENTS (41.6.3) |
|
Pursuant to 41.6.3 of the collective agreement, the following occasional
individual salary adjustments were awarded by the employer for the period 1
May 2005 to 30 April 2008.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||