|
|
|
|
État d’avancement des négociations |
|
Les négociations se déroulent depuis la fin avril. Les deux parties ont convenu au début de tenir 24 séances d’une journée complète de négociations raisonnées, l’animateur est Bruce Hamilton et, après les séances, les négociations adopteront le mode plus traditionnel. Il a aussi été convenu de réserver avant tout ces 24 séances aux trois principaux enjeux que chaque partie est autorisée à présenter à la table pour considération approfondie selon l’approche raisonnée. Voici les principaux enjeux de l’APUO : (1) l’ambiance au travail, (2) la charge de travail et (3) la transition vers la retraite. Ceux de l’employeur sont (1) une meilleure reconnaissance financière du rendement, (2) le processus de promotion et de permanence et (3) les processus des griefs et des mesures disciplinaires. La dernière des 24 séances se déroule le 18 décembre prochain. Au moment de la rédaction des présentes (le 19 novembre 2008), les deux parties avaient presque achevé le processus raisonné complet pour chaque enjeu : obtenir les faits, identifier les intérêts et, si possible, les intérêts communs, déterminer l’énoncé des problèmes et trouver des solutions en séances de remue‑méninges. Le seul enjeu en instance est la proposition de l’employeur visant une meilleure reconnaissance financière du rendement. Notre facilitateur a suggéré que nous réservions les séances suivantes prévues à l’automne à une discussion générale de toutes les solutions proposées, l’objectif étant d’arriver le plus près possible à une entente sur les six principaux enjeux. Entre-temps, l’APUO a identifié divers enjeux appropriés à une approche accélérée des négociations. L’un d’entre eux, le harcèlement en milieu de travail, a été présenté à la table pour discussion et un deuxième, la rémunération et les avantages sociaux, sera présenté à plusieurs réunions distinctes prévues fin novembre et début décembre. D’autre part, des réunions de tables sectorielles se sont déroulées pour considérer des enjeux pertinents aux bibliothécaires et il y a eu des réunions pour traiter d’enjeux mineurs. La majorité des enjeux mineurs de l’APUO aux tables sectorielles sont réglés et les questions pertinentes aux bibliothécaires font des progrès. L’employeur propose un nouveau système d’établissement du rang pour les bibliothécaires ramenant à quatre les cinq rangs actuels, mais nous n’avons pas vu les détails de la proposition à date. Étant donné la fonction cumulative de l’approche raisonnée pour régler les problèmes, les décisions sont reportées à la fin du processus et il n’y a donc pas grand-chose à dire maintenant sur les résultats définitifs. L’horizon devrait cependant s’éclaircir d’ici quelques semaines car nous aurons achevé les 24 séances de négociations raisonnées. Le secteur qui a fait le plus de progrès jusqu’à maintenant est celui de l’examen des processus des griefs et des mesures disciplinaires, un enjeu où les intérêts des deux parties (accélérer les affaires et éviter les délais) sont plus étroitement harmonisés. Le progrès des autres enjeux est plus restreint, dans de nombreux cas parce qu’une partie n’est pas intéressée à donner suite aux solutions particulières que propose l’autre partie. Les solutions considérées dans de nombreux secteurs ont donc une portée relativement limitée. De plus, les deux parties commencent seulement à négocier la rémunération et les avantages sociaux qui ont des répercussions sur les principaux enjeux où l’argent a probablement une incidence, à savoir la transition vers la retraite et une meilleure reconnaissance financière du rendement. Nous prévoyons avoir un tableau plus évident de l’état d’avancement de la ronde de négociation actuelle au début de la nouvelle année. Les deux parties veulent toujours conclure les négociations au printemps au plus tard. Progress of Negotiations Negotiations have been ongoing since they began in late April. The two parties agreed initially to 24 full-day sessions of interest-based bargaining, making use of Bruce Hamilton as facilitator, after which bargaining would revert to a more traditional mode. It was also agreed that these 24 sessions should be devoted primarily to the three major issues that each side was allowed to bring to the table for in-depth consideration using the interest-based approach. The APUO identified (1) work climate, (2) workload, and (3) transition to retirement as its major issues. The employer identified (1) enhanced financial recognition of performance, (2) tenure and promotion process, and (3) processes for grievances and disciplinary measures as its major issues. The last of these 24 sessions will take place on 18 December next. At the time of writing (19 November 2008) the two sides have almost completed the full interest-based process on each issue: gathering facts; identifying interests and, wherever possible, common interests; arriving at a problem statement; and brainstorming solutions. The only issue yet to be completed is the employer’s proposal for financial recognition of performance. Our facilitator has suggested that we devote the remaining sessions scheduled for this fall to a global discussion of all the solutions proposed, with a view to coming as close as possible to agreement on the six major issues. Meanwhile, there are a number of issues identified by the APUO as appropriate for an accelerated approach to bargaining. One of these, workplace harassment, has been brought to the table for discussion and a second, salaries and benefits, will be introduced at several separately scheduled meetings in late November and early December. In addition to this, side-table meetings have been held to deal with issues pertinent to our librarian members, as well as meetings to deal with minor issues. Most of the minor APUO side-table issues have been settled, and progress is being made on issues pertinent to librarians. The employer is proposing a new ranking system for librarians, reducing the current five ranks to four, but to date we have not seen details of what they propose. Because the interest-based approach works cumulatively towards the solution of problems, deferring decisions until the end of the process, there is relatively little to be reported in terms of final outcomes at this stage. The picture should, however, become clearer in the weeks ahead, as we complete the 24 interest-based negotiating sessions. The area where most progress has been made to date is the review of processes for grievances and disciplinary measures, an issue where the interests of the two sides (in expediting matters and obviating delays) are more closely aligned. Progress on the other issues has been more limited, in many cases because one side is not interested in pursuing particular solutions proposed by the other side. So the solutions being considered in many areas are relatively limited in scope. There is also the circumstance that the two sides are just beginning to negotiate on salaries and benefits, which has an impact on those major issues where money is likely to be involved, namely, transition to retirement and enhanced financial recognition of performance. Our expectation is that at the beginning of the New Year, we will have a clearer picture of where things stand in the current round of negotiations. The two sides are still aiming to wrap up the negotiations by spring at the latest.
DÉcision arbitrale An arbitrator has issued an award in a matter reported in the 12 February 2008 edition of the Bulletin regarding access to documents in the possession of APUO members. Arbitrator Chodos has ruled that the directive sent by the employer to members for copies of documents in their possession was contrary to the collective agreement and should be withdrawn. L’employeur a reçu une demande d’information en novembre 2006 en vertu de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée (LAIPVP). L’employeur a réagi en envoyant un avis aux membres demandant qu’ils lui remettent les documents pertinents à la demande et qu’ils ont en main, sur support papier ou électronique. Au cours d’un incident distinct, mais connexe, l’APUO s’est inquiétée parce que l’employeur a affirmé avoir accès aux messages électroniques des membres sur le serveur de l’Université et elle se préoccupait des répercussions éventuelles sur la plus grande question des communications entre les membres et des communications de l’APUO. Que l’Université demande accès à ces dossiers des membres en vertu de la LAIPVP est d’une importance particulière pour l’APUO parce que cela signifie qu’elle prétend avoir la garde et le contrôle de tous ces documents et communications. L’employeur soutient avoir la garde et le contrôle des documents aux mains des professeurs (en général ou en vertu de la LAIPVP), ce qui peut avoir des conséquences extrêmement graves et particulièrement marquantes pour les professeurs, même hors de cette université. L’ACPPU s’est impliquée et l’APUO a ensuite déposé un grief d’interprétation. Le point du grief n’avait rien à voir avec l’obligation de l’employeur de répondre à une demande de divulgation en vertu de la LAIPVP, ce qui est évident, mais il s’agit plutôt de déterminer si l’employeur, suivant la convention collective, a droit d’affirmer avoir le contrôle des dossiers des membres. Les parties ont pu régler la question des communications de l’APUO en particulier et un protocole d’entente a été signé pour protéger la confidentialité de toutes les communications de l’APUO ou envoyées à celle-ci. Les parties n’ont cependant pas réglé la question des documents en possession des professeurs ou de leurs dossiers électroniques et ce volet du grief est passé en arbitrage avec l’aide du Service juridique de l’ACPPU. The hearings were held over fourteen days, concluding in March of 2008. The arbitration award was issued 30 September 2008. In his award, Arbitrator Chodos noted that the issue of control and custody of documents in the possession of members needs to be considered in light of the university context. In the course of this hearing the differences between the parties have narrowed considerably. The University has at least implicitly recognized that there may well be documents originated by and in the possession of professors that are not in the custody and control of the University, as that term is used in the FIPPA. Both parties have also agreed that the collective agreement informs and provides context to the notion of “custody and control,” as do the practices and customs at the University vis-à-vis the three major academic endeavours: (1) teaching, (2) research, and (3) community activities. I entirely agree with them in this respect. The University, through its counsel, has at least implicitly acknowledged that Exhibit U-2 (the letter from Ms. Harrod) is too broad, in that it fails to take into account either the exemptions under the Act or the provisions of the collective agreement that may impinge on the University’s right to seek the documents identified in Ms. Harrods’ letter. I agree with that conclusion and accordingly I find that Exhibit U-2 is contrary to the collective agreement and should be withdrawn. This, however, begs the question as to what, if any, documents that may be in the possession of academic staff are subject to the Act, This remains a relevant question, if for no other reason than the academic staff are indeed employees of the University. Nevertheless, in light of the collective agreement and the age-old customs and practices of academic institutions, including the University of Ottawa, it can hardly be argued that university professors are typical employees who are subject to the close scrutiny of management. In general, the evidence demonstrates that in the context of the various governing structures of the University, which are described in detail above, the academic staff have a considerable degree of independence in the exercise of their academic functions ,i.e. teaching, research and community activities. Indeed, it is hard to conceive how they could fulfill those functions without such latitude and independence. Although Arbitrator Chodos did not provide a comprehensive direction as to what documents are in the custody or control of the University, he did provide some guidance for the parties in that regard. He responded to the APUO’s submission that only documents related to administrative functions fall under the purview of the Act and that the collective agreement should be used to determine members’ rights in this regard. As employees of the University it is conceivable that academic staff may be in possession of documents which are neither subsumed by the exemptions under the Act, nor can be characterized as being strictly related to University administrative matters. For example, in some circumstances student evaluations may fall into this gray zone. In fact, academic staff can be required in the course of the exercise of their responsibilities to provide information to the administration for certain limited and specific purposes. One example is the requirement to submit information concerning research to the Ethics Committee when human subjects are involved. In a number of contexts (e.g. applications for tenure, sabbaticals, internal funding of research) professors are expected (and have complied with this requirement) to submitted fairly detailed information concerning their activities, mostly regarding research projects. It is at least arguable that these requirements are not entirely subsumed under the rubric of “administrative matters”. However, I do agree with the Association that in particular the provisions of the collective agreement such as section 20 that describe in detail the scope of teaching and research activities should be used to put flesh on the bare bones of the exemption provisions of section 65.(1)(8.1). This approach is consistent with the Commission’s decisions (e.g. Township of King, supra ) which speaks of “the customary practice” of institutions and the parties they contract with. Counsel for the University has readily acknowledged that there are a number of types of documents, including emails, research papers, etc. in the possession of academic staff that are not in the custody and control of the University... One obvious example are communications between the Association and its members. Other examples are exchanges between professors and persons outside the University sphere relating to their private work, such as Professor Leclerc’s psychology practice. I would also include here, e.g. Professor Morin’s work with the North American Benthological Society. This is merely illustrative of some of the types of documents in this category, and is not intended to be in way comprehensive. The Association acknowledges that documents related to the administrative functions of certain academic staff, such as chairs of departments; vice-deans, etc., can be considered within the custody and control of the University. I would agree with this assertion. As to what may specifically constitute documents of this nature, I would suggest that it includes correspondence with the Administration between these individuals concerning these functions including minutes of meetings and documentation of conclusions reached, subject always to the protection of “personal information” as that term is used in the Act. In his conclusion, arbitrator Chodos determined that the original directive from the University to APUO members should be withdrawn. He left it to the parties to try to consider how an access request under FIPPA should be applied to different types of documents in the possession of APUO members. In the event that the APUO and the University are unable to agree, Arbitrator Chodos has retained jurisdiction to issue a further award.
Policy on
fraud In recent months, APUO and the employer have been in discussion over a draft of a policy being written by the University regarding fraudulent activity and whistleblowing. APUO has responded to the draft by noting some inconsistencies between the Policy and the collective agreement. Although discussions are ongoing, the employer has informed APUO that it wishes to proceed with the policy, and that it will be publicizing it in the near future. At the same time, the employer has stated explicitly that the policy is not intended to encroach upon the collective agreement or to diminish or restrict any collective agreement rights. For its part, APUO has informed the employer that if the policy or its implementation conflicts with or affects the collective agreement in any way, the collective agreement rather than the policy would apply. In the meantime, it is expected that APUO and the employer will continue to review the matter, and any further developments will be reported to the membership.
|