December 2018 Bulletin

Student Evaluations of Teaching: the Kaplan Arbitration Ruling

On June 28, William Kaplan, the Arbitrator appointed to resolve the issue of Faculty Course Surveys (FCS) and related matters, including the use of student evaluations of teaching (SET) for promotion and/or tenure decisions, between the Ryerson Faculty Association and the Ryerson University, rendered a decision which highlights the limitations of the use of SETs, and the importance of a well-rounded review of faculty teaching. 

The APUO prepared a summary of the arbitration ruling and provides a brief analysis of its potential impacts at the University of Ottawa. The text is available in full at the following link.

Course materials and copyright
 

Some of you have contacted us expressing concerns about students redistributing audio recordings, videos, photos, and course materials without the authorisation of professors. These actions violate your intellectual property rights and the Canadian Copyright Act. The APUO offers the following sample statements for granting or withholding permission for the recording of lectures as examples of text that you may include in your course syllabi.  

Sample 1: Professor forbids recordings and redistribution of course materials
Recording lectures in any way, including the taking of photographs, is prohibited in this course unless specific permission has been granted by the professor. The educational materials developed for this course, including, but not limited to, lecture notes and slides, handout materials, examinations and assignments, and any materials posted to Brightspace, are the intellectual property of the professor. These materials have been developed for student use only and are not intended for wider dissemination and/or communication outside of a given course. Participation in this course constitutes an agreement by all parties to abide by the relevant University Policies, and to respect the intellectual property of others during and after their association with the University of Ottawa. Students creating unauthorized audio and/or video recordings of lectures, and/or redistributing or providing unauthorized audio, video, photographic or textual material of lecture content violates the professor’s intellectual property rights, and the Canadian Copyright Act.    

Sample 2: Professor permits audio and/or video recordings but with no distribution rights
For this course, students may create audio and/or video recordings of the lectures for their personal use. Such recordings are intended to permit lecture content review so as to enhance understanding of the topics presented. They are not a substitute for attending class meetings. Please be advised that since audio and video recordings are permitted, students’ voices and/or images may be recorded by others during the class. Please speak to the course instructor if this is a concern for you. When creating audio and/or video recordings of the lectures, students agree to the following terms and conditions:

  1. Recordings are not to be distributed through any on or off-line distribution channel without the expressed permission of the professor.
     
  2. Recordings are not to be shared with other classmates without the expressed permission of the professor.

Participation in this course constitutes an agreement by all parties to abide by the relevant University Policies, and to respect the intellectual property of others during and after their association with the University of Ottawa. Non-compliance with these terms violates the professor’s intellectual property rights and the Canadian Copyright Act. 

Posters of a racist-Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, and homophobic nature

The APUO strongly denounces the racist Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, and homophobic posters that were seen on our campus in late November/early December. The posters are part of a context in which we are witnessing an increase in hate and discrimination-based speech and crimes around the world. The APUO believes that discrimination and any acts rooted in hatred and intolerance have no place at the University of Ottawa. 

We express our solidarity and support for the communities targeted by the hateful message promoted through these posters.

The Canadian Association of university Teachers and the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations

In November, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) sent a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau denouncing the adoption of the back-to-work legislation, putting an end to negotiations between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) and Canada Post, and ordering an immediate return to work. The APUO firmly supports CAUT’s position and reiterates that free collective bargaining is a right. 

For its part, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) shared a press release in which it expressed concerns about the Ford government’s decision to cancel the Université de l’Ontario français project. OCUFA is adding its voice to that of the APUO, which, on November 26, strongly condemned the cuts affecting post-secondary education and the Franco-Ontarian community

APUO office during the holidays

Finally, we wish all of our members a happy holiday. Please note that the APUO office will be closed from Friday, December 21, to January 2, inclusively. The office will reopen with our regular 8 am to 4 pm hours on Thursday, January 3, 2019. 

Assessment of Senior Administrator – Faculty of Arts

Dear members of the APUO,

In accordance with its Policy Statement on Assessment of Senior Administrators, in December 2018 the APUO asked members in the Faculty of Arts to complete a survey to assess their dean.

You can view the summary of results and the details of the quantitative questions by clicking on the appropriate link.

As this is the first time that a Senior Administrator is evaluated for a second time, it might be useful to compare the data. As you can see from the table below, the assessment results for Dean Kee have dropped significantly for all categories.

CategoriesFebruary 2017 assessmentDecember 2018 assessmentDifference
Leadership3.693.38-0.31
Allocation of Resources3.472.88-0.59
Administrative Ability3.723.24-0.48
Personal Relations3.883.48-0.40
Overall Evaluations3.663.09-0.57

In interpreting the arithmetic mean values, it should be noted that the items on the questionnaire have a range of 1 to 5: 1 represents extremely poor performance; 5 represents outstanding performance; any mean value below 3 indicates unsatisfactory performance; mean values from 3 to 4 indicate satisfactory performance; and mean values above 4 indicate more than satisfactory performance.

You can view the results of previous surveys here:
·         Winter 2017 assessments
·         Winter 2016 assessments

With kind regards,

The APUO Executive Committee

Student Evaluations of Teaching: the Kaplan Arbitration Ruling

On June 28, William Kaplan, the Arbitrator appointed to resolve the issue of Faculty Course Surveys (FCS) and related matters, including the use of student evaluations of teaching (SET) for promotion and/or tenure decisions, between the Ryerson Faculty Association and the Ryerson University, rendered a decision which highlights the limitations of the use of SETs, and the importance of a well-rounded review of faculty teaching.

Evidence presented during the arbitration demonstrated that individual characteristics including race, gender, accent, age and the appearance of a professor, all influenced the results of SETs. Other factors such as whether the evaluations are done online versus in-class, the courses are elective or mandatory, the number of students in the course, the subject matter, and the teaching style also impact the SET results.

“The expert evidence led at the hearing persuasively demonstrates that the most meaningful aspects of teaching performance and effectiveness cannot be assessed by Student Evaluations of Teaching. Insofar as assessing teaching effectiveness is concerned – especially in the context of tenure and promotion – Student Evaluations of Teaching are imperfect at best, and downright biased and unreliable at worst.”
– William Kaplan

At the University of Ottawa, the use of A-Reports (based on student questionnaires) is one of several elements considered in the promotion and/or tenure process. While the overall procedure to evaluate teaching at Ryerson University and at our own institution differ in many ways, the Kaplan arbitration ruling presents valid criticism, and exposes limitations of some aspects of our system.

What role do the A-reports play in the evaluation process at uOttawa? Unlike many other institutions, A-Reports may only be used as an indicator towards a decision by the Dean to initiate or not a Direct Peer Review of Teaching (DPRT). As per article 24.2.1.3 c) of our Collective Agreement, unless the Dean initiates a DPRT due to a pattern of weak A-Reports or outstanding teaching, any evaluation of teaching must be considered to have met expectations. Thus, at our institution, the Central Administration cannot deny tenure or promotion based on “weak” A-Reports alone. While we appreciate that in our Collective Agreement, there are measures in place to allow professors to communicate their own reflections on teaching and learning in light of A-reports, we also recognize that this doesn’t fully address the inequities and consequences for professors who face strong (conscious or unconscious) bias in their teaching evaluations. In light of the low participation rates on online student evaluation of teaching, the APUO is further concerned about the possibility of low participation rates exacerbating bias and compromising the relevance of the data. This is particularly important for professors who plan to apply for promotion and /or tenure in the coming years.

As a result of the most recent round of collective bargaining, the APUO will meet with the Central Administration in May of each academic year to discuss and review issues arising from the use of student evaluations data in making career recommendations and decisions.

The Central administration mandated the Senate Committee on teaching and its evaluation to study approaches to evaluating teaching. The Committee will make recommendations to revise/change current practices. Even if the Senate accepts to modify the current practices, the Central Administration will be required to get the APUO’s approval prior to implementing its use to officially evaluate a member’s teaching.

We wish to remind members that they are strongly encouraged to raise concerns they have regarding the use of student evaluations of teaching with the APUO, mainly if they believe they might negatively impact their application for promotion and/or tenure.

You may also be interested in reading the Canadian Association of University Teachers’ (CAUT) November bulletin The end of student questionnaires?

Economic Statement of the Ford Government

Dear members,

On November 15, in its fall economic statement, the Ford government announced cuts affecting post-secondary education and independent government watchdogs. Among them, the decisions infringing upon the rights of Franco-Ontarians are of particular concern for the University of Ottawa community.

The APUO strongly denounces these decisions and echoes the calls of the Franco-Ontarian community for their immediate reversal. The Office of the Commissioner of French Language Services and the Université de l’Ontario français are the result of long struggles on the part of Ontario’s Francophones.

In the current context of austerity, we are concerned that possible cuts in funding for colleges and universities could have an impact on the availability of French-language courses and programs at the University of Ottawa. We intend to work with the Central Administration in order to make sure that the University of Ottawa fully exercise its mandate to “preserve and develop French culture in Ontario”, as set out in section 4c of the University of Ottawa Act (1965), and comply with the Ontario French Language Services Act.

As a bilingual union in Ontario, the APUO stands in solidarity with the Franco-Ontarians’ struggles for justice.

Wash, Rinse & Repeat: The 2018 Update on the Real Financial Situation of the University of Ottawa

On September 25, APUO members received a communication from Jacques Frémont, President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ottawa. President Frémont informed all members of the University community of a budgetary surplus of $15M instead of a balanced budget. The President argues that the $15M surplus is not structural but rather a one-time effect. One day earlier, on September 24, the Board of Governors approved the 2017-18 audited Financial Statements.

This communication will focus on the following questions:

  1. What are the real financial results for the University for the 2017-18 financial year according to the audited Financial Statements?
  2. Why are the numbers presented by the President and the APUO so different? What are the differences between a budget and audited financial statements?
  3. Why are the budget and the audited financial statements numbers so different? What are the potential solutions to this problem?
  4. Is the financial surplus structural or rather a one-time effect?

What are the real financial results for the University for the 2017-18 financial year according to the audited Financial Statements?

The University of Ottawa audited Financial Statements show a $69.77M surplus for the 2017-18 fiscal year. This surplus is significantly higher than last year’s surplus of $48.57M. Actually, it is the highest surplus of the past 10 years. Over the past 10 years, the cumulative surpluses are over $429.46M.

Fiscal year Audited Surplus (deficit)
2007-2008 $52.06M
2008-2009 $16.89M
2009-2010 $63.19M
2010-2011 $41.47M
2011-2012 $28.16M
2012-2013 ($1.48M)
2013-2014 $61.22M  (rectified in 2015)
2014-2015 $62.84M
2015-2016 ($13.23M)
2016-2017 $48.57M
2017-2018 $69.77M

Last year, Central Administration argued that the $48.57M surplus was higher than expected due to a significant increase to the return on our investments ($38.5M). While it may be true that the Central Administration’s investments are doing well, it still left the University with a $12.1M operating surplus. This year, the operating surplus was actually higher, at $76.84M, reduced by a $7.06M decline in fair value of investments.

Why are the numbers presented by the uOttawa President and the APUO so different?

You will notice that President Frémont’s communication refers to a “budgetary surplus” while the APUO refers to the “audited financial statements.” In simple terms, the budget is a financial projection generated by the Central Administration without any third-party oversight (no audit). In this case, the President is simply stating that there is a surplus in relation to the budget. By contrast, audited financial statements are third-party verified facts about the financial situation of an organisation. The generation of the Financial Statement have to follow Canadian Accounting standards.

Audited Financial Statement Budget
Third-party (auditor) oversight? Yes No
Who decides the assumptions and definitions? Canadian Accounting standards Central Administration
Past or future oriented? Past (facts, verified by an auditor) Future (projection)

The Central Administration could decide to use the Canadian Accounting standards in preparing the budget but instead uses “modified cash basis accounting.” As you can see below, the decision not to use Canadian Accounting standards consistently generates significantly different results:

Budget year Accounting standard used Surplus/Deficit
2018-2019 Modified cash basis accounting Balanced budget
CA accounting standards Not published
2017-2018 Modified cash basis accounting $4.6 million deficit
CA accounting standards $15 million surplus 
2016-2017 Modified cash basis accounting $4.9 million deficit
CA accounting standards $16 million surplus 
2015-2016 Modified cash basis accounting $1.9 million deficit
CA accounting standards $13 million surplus 

Interestingly enough, the University of Ottawa budget no longer includes a Surplus/Deficit prediction using the Canadian accounting standards contrary to previous years. Using the “modified cash basis accounting” standards allows the Central Administration to advertise major budgetary deficits (often associated with cuts) while knowing that, even if their budget is 100% correct, their audited Financial Statements will show significant surpluses. Thus, the decision to use “modified cash basis accounting” allows the Central Administration to cut staff and services knowing that such cuts are not necessary to achieve a balanced budget, which then allows them to reallocate surpluses at their discretion. In other words, it is a political (and centralizing) decision hidden by an accounting technique.

Why are the budget and the audited financial statements numbers so different? What are the potential solutions to this problem?

As stated above, one of the major sources of confusion between the budget and audited Financial Statements numbers lies with the decision of the Central Administration to use “modified cash basis accounting” instead of the Canadian Accounting standards to prepare the budget. One simple solution would be for the Central Administration to use Canadian Accounting standards to prepare their budgets.

Is the financial surplus structural or rather a one-time effect?

This is an extremely difficult question for the APUO to answer since we do not have access to all the necessary information. That being said, the history of the past ten (10) years, i.e. cumulative surpluses of over $429.46M (see table 1 above), suggests that the University of Ottawa’s surplus is ‘structural.’ This money represents in part education services non-delivered. It is time for the Central Administration to be accountable to the University community for these cumulative surpluses and, more generally, for its management of our University. It is also time to put an end to austerity and put back in place the services that have been cut on the basis of erroneous premises.

Bill 47

Dear Members,

On October 23, the Doug Ford government introduced sweeping changes to the Employment Standards Act through Bill 47. The changes being introduced are a cause for great concern. They will inevitably impact upon our working conditions and those of our colleagues.

The change most directly affecting our University Community is the repeal of equal pay for equal work for casual, part-time, and temporary worker employee classifications. The abolition of these provisions from the Employment Standards Act gives the Central Administration a green light to continue its upward trend of hiring precarious workers, reducing our ability to protect our minimum complement in the next round of collective bargaining.

Bill 47 also curtails existing protections against sex-based pay discrimination. It removes the right of workers who believe they are victims of sex-based pay discrimination from asking their employer to correct discrepancies without reprisal.

The legislative change also has direct repercussions for our Association of Part-Time Professors of the University of Ottawa (APTPUO) colleagues who are working on amalgamating their multiple bargaining units. Teaching and research assistants as well as markers, who are represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) local 2626, will also be impacted should Bill 47 pass. Our workload and working conditions are intimately tied to those of our colleagues.

The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Association (OCUFA), along with the APUO, the Carleton University Academic Staff Association (CUASA), the Faculty Associations at Algonquin College and at La Cité, and Fight for $15 and Fairness are organising a rally at the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities Constituency Office at 10 a.m. on Friday November 2. We encourage all Members to join the rally and to invite their students to participate in this action. 

Here is a summary of other notable changes introduced to the Employment Standard Act through Bill 47:

Minimum Wage:

  • Cancelling of the scheduled January 1 increase to $15/hour and freezing the minimum wage at $14/hour for the next 33 months. Minimum wage increases tied to inflation to restart in 2020.

Union Certification:

  • Replacing card-based union certification with a secret ballot vote.
  • Repealing rules mandating employers to share employee contact information during a union certification drive.
  • Removing employee protections for those who engage in union certification drives.
  • Repealing the power of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to review and consolidate certified bargaining units.

Personal Emergency Leave:

  • Reintroduction of provisions allowing employers to require employees to provide a medical note from a qualified health practitioner for taking sick days.
  • 10 paid personal emergency days repealed and replaced with 3 unpaid days for sickness, 3 unpaid family emergency days, and 2 unpaid bereavement leave days.

Equal Pay for Equal Work:

  • Repealing equal pay for equal work for part-time, casual, temporary workers and assignment employee status (temporary help agency status).

Employer protection:

  • The government is reducing administrative penalties for employer-contraventions of the Employment Standards Act.

Bill 47 is a step backwards for Ontario workers. It proposes of series of changes that will harm a significant proportion of the Ontario population, as well as reversing what should be considered basic rights for precarious workers across the province. The APUO strongly encourages our Members to join us for the rally on November 2. If Bill 47 is adopted, we can reasonably expect future legislative changes that will impact our own collective agreement and the Ontario postsecondary education sector as a whole.

September Bulletin 2018

September 2018 Bulletin

Updates to the Collective Agreement

As reported on June 27, we are very pleased to have ratified our new Collective Agreement, which is in effect from May 1, 2018, to April 30, 2021. Here is a summary of the main modifications to the Collective Agreement.

Workload

For the duration of the new Collective Agreement, the complement of faculty appointments will continue to be 1,311. It is worth noting that the APUO is one of the few academic staff unions that has successfully negotiated a minimal complement in its Collective Agreement in recent years.

Equity

The following paragraph has been added to the Collective Agreement.

Preamble (article 2):

(c)             With respect to the University’s mission to recognise diversity and foster respect, and in accordance with the University’s equity goals, the parties intend to continue playing a key role in promoting members of equity seeking groups in all sectors of university life.

We also bargained changes to language to emphasize the need to increase the representation of “equity groups” rather than focusing on “gender representation.”

For those of you who are members of Appointment Committees, you will now be required to participate in a soon-to-be-developed equity training. All Appointment Committees shall now have at least one Member who is from an equity group (woman, Aboriginal, Member with a disability, Visible Minority).

We have reinforced the language around the need for the Central Administration to provide data to the Equity Diversity and Inclusion Committee as it relates to the proportion of Equity Group members.

The APUO and the Central Administration signed a Letter of understanding on the creation of a Teaching Personnel Equity Committee. The Committee will be tasked with investigating potential constitutional, by-law and procedural changes to Teaching Personnel Committees (DTPC, FTPC, LPC, TPCI) that could make our hiring practices more equitable.

Finally, there is a Letter of Understanding to study the Gender Salary Differentials. The APUO and the Central Administration will create a Gender Wage Gap Committee (GWGC) to identify and correct gender-based salary anomalies.

Librarians

Following a posting, the Librarian selection committee will consider internal candidates holding continuing appointments before external candidates.

Before revising a job description, the University Librarian shall now have to consult with the affected Librarian Member.

Continuing Special Appointment Professors (CSAP)

Once every five years, a CSAP member may apply for a four-month professional leave, with no reduction in remuneration, to enhance their teaching or perform scholarly activities.

Pilot project: Grievances

The APUO and the Central administration have agreed to implement a pilot project, for the duration of the Collective Agreement, replacing Step 2: Formal Grievance Committee (FGC) with a mediation session.

Student Evaluation data

The APUO and the Central Administration agree that for the next three academic years, the University may utilize the student evaluation data collected as authorized by the Senate in making career recommendations and decisions. The APUO has not provided its authorisation for any student evaluation collected electronically prior to July 2018. The two Parties will meet in May of each academic year to review whether issues arise from the use of student evaluations data in making career recommendations and decisions.

Salaries and benefits

Members will benefit from a two percent (2%) economic increase every year of the Collective Agreement. The same increase will be applied every year to the Progress-thru-the-Ranks amounts.

Changes to the Extended Health Plan

Coverage type Implementation date Change
Extended Health Plan May 1, 2019
  • Plan co-insured at 80%
  • A new “out of pocket” maximum on drugs per certificate per calendar year of $1,500.
May 1, 2020
  • Plan co-insured at 80%
  • “Out of pocket” maximum on drugs per certificate per calendar year increased at $2,000.
May 1, 2021
  • Plan co-insured at 80%
  • “Out of pocket” maximum on drugs per certificate per calendar year increased at $3,000.

Pension contributions

As of January 1, 2019, employee contributions to the pension will go up by 0.8% with full salary offset.

Retirees’ privileges and benefits

Retirees may receive, at no cost, a parking permit as per the negotiated agreement between the University and the Association of Professors Retired from the University of Ottawa (APRUO). The Central Administration will also provide the APRUO with suitable rooms as required for association business, free of charge, provided reasonable notice is given and space is available.

Other

There will be an inventory of compensation for Members who take on various administrative tasks. This inventory will look at whether or not Members have, for example, salary top-ups, course releases, or research funds for the extra administrative duties they sometimes take on. The results of this inventory will put the APUO in a stronger position to include compensation for administrative duties in future collective agreements.

Salary Increases – Memorandum of Settlement 

As mentioned above, Members will benefit from a two percent (2%) economic increase every year of the Collective Agreement as well as a two percent (2%) increase to the Progress-thru-the-Ranks amounts. As the Collective Agreement took effect on May 1, 2018, you should have noticed the above-mentioned increase on your September 15 paycheck, and a retroactive pay will be issued no later than October 5, 2018.

Accommodating Students with Disabilities

As outlined in the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities, education providers have a duty to accommodate students with disabilities. Our duty to accommodate is based on three principles: respect for dignity, individualization, and integration and full participation. Each student’s needs are unique and must be considered individually when accommodation requests are made. When providing accommodations, it is key that students be able to participate in the process, and have an opportunity to express their needs.

The University’s SASS (Student Academic Success Service)–Academic Accommodations runs a Portal for professors called “Ventus”. Through this portal, you can view the students from each of your courses who are registered with SASS–Academic Accommodations, their accommodations, view and verify confirmations of academic accommodation letters, submit and modify notices of examinations and proctor instruction sheets, and view uploaded exam files.

We encourage all Members to work with SASS–Academic Accommodations to ensure accommodations are delivered in a timely manner, and in a way that supports the success of all students. We also recommend looking through the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s policy on Accessible Education for Students with disabilities, specifically, Section 8 which outlines education providers’ duties to accommodate. Finally, please let us know if SASS does not have the resources to provide you with all the support you need.

The Ontario Government’s Free Speech Policy

On August 30, the Government of Ontario announced that Universities and Colleges will be mandated to adopt Free Speech policies by January 1, 2019. In its announcement, the Government further declared that these policies and their implementation on campus would be linked to operating and grant funding.

The APUO will continue to monitor the situation and will keep you informed of developments as the Central Administration takes steps to implement its own policy.

University of Ottawa 2017-2018 Financial Results

Earlier this week, Members should have received a communication from the Office of the President reporting a budgetary surplus of $15 million for the fiscal year ending on April 30, 2018. While Jacques Frémont seemed surprised by this outcome, the APUO would like to remind you that over the last decade, the University of Ottawa has recorded cumulative surpluses now amounting to $362 million.

While the President emphasized that this surplus is the result of austerity measures in the form of vacant positions, especially among support staff, we stress that this represents an increase in our workload and a deterioration of our working conditions. It appears that despite the continued financial health of our institution, the Central administration does not plan on addressing the concerns we’ve raised with regards to the quality of education being impacted by continued clawbacks to funding and resources that allow us to focus on teaching and research.

As has been the case in previous years, we will continue to monitor the financial situation of the University, and to advocate for additional support staff with the goal of fully carrying out the University’s mission and strategic goals.

Ratification vote results

Dear APUO members,

The results of the ratification vote are as follows: 182 YES and 4 NO. The tentative settlement has therefore been supported by 97.84% of the members who have cast a ballot.

We wish to thank our members for the continued support shown to us during this round of bargaining.

Sincerely,

The APUO Executive Committee

APUO Ratification Meeting

RATIFICATION MEETING

Dear APUO Members,

A ratification meeting of the proposed collective agreement (1 May 2018 to 30 April 2021) will be held on Wednesday June 27, 2018. A summary of the process and results, followed by a «Questions and Answers» period, will take place from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, in the Alumni Auditorium UCU (85 University). The ratification vote itself will begin at 11:00 AM and last until 4:00 PM at the entrance of the Alumni Auditorium.

You can download the 2018-2021 Tentative Settlement which includes changes to the collective agreement and the letters of understanding that accompany it.

We hope to see you in large numbers, as with previous general meetings.

Sincerely,

The APUO Executive Committee

The Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO) strives to make its services accessible to all persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations to access or to fully participate in this event, please contact Michel Desjardins (apuodir@uottawa.ca, 613-230-3659) at the APUO office no later than three (3) working days prior to the meeting/event. Such advance notice is essential for the APUO to make arrangements for any appropriate accommodation requests. 

Bargaining Update: Agreement in principle

Dear members,

We are pleased to inform you that we have reached an agreement in principle with the Central Administration at the end of our second day of mediation.

We believe that we have negotiated the best deal possible in the current circumstances and we are happy to recommend its ratification. The agreement will be presented to the APUO Executive next week. A Special General Assembly (SGA) and secret vote to ratify the agreement will be held in the coming weeks. All relevant information will be forwarded to you as soon as possible.

We would like to thank all APUO members for your support and participation in our Respect campaign. We also wish to thank William Kaplan, the independent mediator who worked hard to make this agreement possible.

Thank you again for your extraordinary support.

Sincerely,

The APUO Negotiation Team
Michel Desjardins
Jean-Daniel Jacob
Susan Spronk
Dalie Giroux
Colin Montpetit
Richard Hébert
Paul Saurette
Natasha Udell