Saturday 3 September 2011
Sept 2 Update from our Team
Bargaining Backgrounder
September 2, 2011
To all Local Presidents & Mobilizers
From your CAAT Support Bargaining Team
____________________________________________________________________________
Late in the evening on Wednesday Aug. 31, as the clocked moved toward a midnight strike deadline,
negotiators for management told us ‘this was it.’ They weren’t prepared to move a step closer to a
settlement. Left behind on the bargaining table were several of our items that needed to be addressed
and a number of changes they proposed that would have eliminated some of our existing rights.
We want to be perfectly clear on one issue: we put forward the last offer of settlement and management
told us they were not prepared to go any further. We believe that had management come to the table in
June with their full proposals on the table, or had they responded by providing their full proposals earlier
than August 23
rd, we may have been able to avoid a strike.
We are out on the picket lines now because management dragged its heels and refused to deal with our
issues early. They continued to refuse to deal with some of our issues on the very last day.
We could have bargained further than we did, however, management did not want to. It would have been
pointless for us to be at the bargaining table when the other side was at the table in body, but not in mind.
It’s been 32 years since Support Staff last went on strike; that fact is not lost on management or the
union. Your tangible issues are on the table. The one thing that is not on the table is the respect that the
colleges have for support staff and the importance of the work we do.
We feel that management has shown their thoughts about support staff throughout this bargaining
process, whether it be through their proposals or their actions within the colleges themselves. They have
denied you information from the union point of view, choosing to censor information, only because they
wanted to put out their “we know best” message. Dragging their heels to coming to a settlement and not
respecting the important role we play in the colleges and in students’ lives. They have refusing to take
your issues, the ones that you brought forward, seriously. Finally, they bypassed your bargaining team by
presenting their “offer” through the media. An offer which they only showed parts of.
We have been asked to provide the detailed list of where we are at. Listed below are the last official
positions of both the union and management with explanations of each proposal. Again, we believe a
deal could have been done on August 31
st, but we were told management would go no further.
Union Proposals
Wages: Year 1 – 3% , Year 2 – 3%
We know three facts about this proposal, a) support staff indicated to us they were looking for a 3%
increase, b) the inflation rate is 2.7% and c) the average wage increase of those in the education sector
for July is 2%. Why would we ask our members to go backwards? The Colleges have confirmed that a
number of colleges do have surplus money, they explained to us that this money is not for us, it’s money
to be set aside to fix things (ie..a leaky roof, or air conditioning unit that may have broken). It’s always
good to know that our buildings are more important than the people in them. We have stated on many
occasions we do not want to get ahead, but we also do not want to fall behind either.
RECOGNITION - Exclusive Bargaining Agent
In 2008 OPSEU applied to have the part time employees unionized, a vote was held and the ballots from
that vote are still sealed. There are a number of reasons why the colleges don’t want to unionize the part
time employees.
a) They cost less than a full time employee (lower wages, no benefits)
b) They have more flexibility in terms of work scheduling as they have no protection
c) They are easily disposed of as they have no job security
This makes hiring part-time instead of full-time more attractive to the college, that is one of the main
reasons why the number of part time hires is almost double the number of full time hires. If this trend
continues the need for good full time jobs diminishes, which means less full time jobs, benefit and
pension premium increases as there are less people in the plans, and less positions available for
placement in the case of layoffs.
4.3 List of Part-Time Employees
This proposal speaks to the inaccuracies of the lists provided to the union of part time employees. When
OPSEU made application to have the part time employees unionized the employers lists they provided to
the Labour Relations Board were almost completely different than what they provided to the union. This
makes it almost impossible to track part time positions in order to convert them to good full time jobs.
This proposal adds absolutely no cost to the colleges. These reports are already delivered every four
months and all it takes is a push of a button to produce this list. Management’s fear is that we will find
where there could be more full time jobs.
5.1.1 Leaves of Absence Reimbursed by the Union
We only have one word on this issue…….mobilizing. This round of bargaining has been particularly
challenging as management decided they were going to bully you. They denied members access to
information by not allowing us to have mobilizers available to keep you informed. Members and locals
were threatened that email access would be cut off and bullied into holding meetings offsite to make it
difficult for you to get information.
Article 5.2 – Time Off Local Union
We have proposed 18 hours at 25% (which we already have), to add 27 hours paid by the union and 40
hours paid 100% by the Local. The colleges have full time employees that are paid 100% to deal with
labour relations issues. This proposal allows your representatives to be on an equal footing with
management. The approx. cost per college to provide this would be $21,000 per year.
8.1.3.3 College Paid (STD)
Our proposal speaks to third parties infringing on and restricting on our members’ rights, We’ve heard
stories of these third parties dictating how long you should be sick for, and then advising the colleges.
The colleges then take this information and threaten denial of sick time for the members.
8.1.12 Retirement Benefits
Currently, it is our understanding that the average pension for CAAT Support is around $1300-1400 per
month. This proposal would allow members to have better conditions when they retire as the benefits
plan costs take up a good piece of that pension money. In many cases the retirees had dedicated their
working careers to the college and the students we serve. This is one way the college could recognize
the importance of their contributions towards making the college system the success it is today.
Critical Illness
This proposal has been accepted by our side. There is no cost to the employer for providing this as the
member pays 100% of the premiums.
Extended Health Care
Our proposal deals with the addition of smoking cessation and weight loss to our plan. The members
have asked for this benefit for a number of years.
Section 17 Short Term Disability Plan (STD)
Our proposal allows for re-instatement of sick days upon you first day of returning from an illness, rather
than having to wait 30 days.
9.4.1 Tuition Fees
The proposal from management just doesn’t go far enough. Approx. 19 of 24 colleges have some sort of
tuition policy for dependants. We would like to see this available in all 24 of the colleges, and we also
would like to see it handled centrally.
13.1 Health and Safety Training
This proposal deals with Council’s reneging on an agreement that was signed a number of years ago to
have the Worker’s Health and Safety Centre as the trainer of choice for health and safety.
15.4.5 Displacement
Our proposal would serve to truly take into account a persons seniority. What good is seniority if the
colleges have the ability to release you from the college because you are the third bump? We would like
the true principal of “last in, first out” to apply, meaning that the person in the lowest payband with the
lowest seniority would be the person who went out the door. This change in our collective agreement
would cost nothing to the employer.
15.4.6 Familiarization Period
This would allow for members who do get bumped a reasonable period of familiarization into their new
job. Right now there is no definition of that period and is made up by the colleges.
Letter of Understanding - Less Than 12 Month Positions
This proposal has been accepted.
Letter of Understanding Contracting Out
Our proposal speaks to no contracting out of members’ jobs.
Letter of Understanding – Automobile Insurance
This proposal has been accepted.
Article 6.1.4 Flexible Hours of Work
We heard management’s concerns that two weeks was too little time to have employees opt out of
flexible work hour agreements and counter proposed a four-week period.
Complaints/Grievances
In principal we agree with this proposal, except that the arbitrator’s powers should not be limited.
Letter of Understanding St. Lawrence College
We agree that this article is now redundant and can be removed from our collective agreement
Appendix G
The proposal we put on the table we believe is fair. We can agree to an earlier start date for these
students. However, we also believe they should be paid at a properly evaluated rate and if the earlier
start date is agreed to, they should be paid for the Good Friday holiday should it fall after the start date.
Management Proposals
Wages: Year 1 – 1.50%, Year 2 – 1.50%, Year 3 – 1.75%
We know three facts about this proposal, a) support staff indicated to us they were looking for a 3%
increase, b) the inflation rate is 2.7% and c) the average wage increase of those in the education sector
for July is 2%. Why would we ask our members to go backwards. The Colleges have confirmed that a
number of colleges do have surplus money, they explained to us that this money is not for us, it’s money
to be set aside to fix things (ie..a leaky roof, or air conditioning unit that may have broken). It’s always
good to know that our buildings are more important than the people in them.
Article 5.1.3 - Union Negotiating Committee –
We feel management wants to create a rift between your bargaining team and you by trying to portray this
dispute as an example of how the union leadership wants more, while members are prepared to accept
nothing.
Article 5.1.2 - Leave of Absence – Union Representatives
In order to serve the needs of our members your elected reps need leaves of absence. It may not be a
major issue for members but it’s another way that management deliberately creates a disruptive and
dangerous wedge between the members and your elected union
Article 5.2 - Time Off Local Union
Another example of how management seeks to weaken your right to strong union representation and
contract enforcement. This proposal is a concession to the collective agreement, at first it appears they
are allowing an increase, however when it is put together with the increase of cost to the local, it is an
actual decrease.
Critical Illness
Management and faculty already have this; it’s not a stretch to give this to us. Keep in mind as well, the
premiums are 100% paid by the member.
Compressed Work Week
This was a glimpse into management’s motives that affect your working life. On the one hand they finally
addressed the issue of split work weeks. On the other hand, management
did not address the possible
shift changes that could take place, or changes to your work schedules. Management negotiators did
not
address how it would deal with inequities whereby some members would be allowed to have a four-day
work week while others would be denied. Under management’s proposal if you are a frontline worker you
would never be able to exercise a four-day work week. Management did indicate that if you, too, wished
to exercise a four-day work you’re your only option is to put pressure on your manager to agree to your
request. We consider this proposal as a concession to your ability to have some control over your shift
scheduling. We believe the colleges have the ability to do this under flexible hours of work. If this was a
true proposal it would be offered to everybody.
Flexible Hours of Work
Management negotiators stated two weeks was too short a time frame and that they wanted a longer
period of notice to opt out of a flexible work schedule - even though you may have special circumstances
that require a change in your schedule.
Article 7.7 - Special Allowance
Under our current contract the colleges are required to pay the ‘Special Allowance’ annually on Sept. 1 or
the prior pay period. Management wants to change the date of the payout to the first pay period
AFTER
Sept. 1.
A bit of background. This past August the College Employer Council actually advised the colleges NOT
to pay us the Special Allowance this year. Why not? We believe it was a deliberate move on their part to
further intimidate or bully you by further reducing those funds available to you during a strike. When we
asked management at the bargaining table why they were requesting this change their dubious reply was
that Sept. 1 did not necessarily fall on a payday and because of that it complicated payroll process. So
why didn’t they propose the first payday in August? or July? Because they DO want to limit your available
funds in the event of a strike hoping it will influence your decision on whether or not to support a strike.
Article 14.1 - Probationary Period
Forty-two years ago, under our first collective agreement, our probationary period was six months.
What’s changed over 42 years? Why, suddenly, the urgent need to change the length of the probationary
period. Again, management is trying to undermine our good jobs and abuse new employees. We believe
management’s real agenda is to hire new employees and then release them before their probation
expires, thus creating a temporary workforce. This certainly is a concession to an article we have in the
collective agreement.
Article 18 - Complaints/Grievances
This is actually a decent proposal that both sides successfully achieved. Management proposed a quicker
internal process and we proposed to go to a single arbitrator rather than a board. This could save the
colleges and the union hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Management, however, still aims to limit
an arbitrator’s powers.
Article 18.6.4 - Powers
This would limit the powers of an arbitrator for complaints/grievances (see above)
Scheduling of Arbitration
The colleges have complained that they want to see the number of grievances cleared up and would like
to limit how long a grievance can be “on the books”. This would mean that if your grievance was not
heard in a certain time then it would be dropped.
Letter of Understanding - Less Than 12 Month Positions
This proposal would allow those in less than 12 month positions to carry benefits during their annual
layoff period. The premiums would be paid by the member.
Letter of Understanding - Time Off – St. Lawrence College
This proposal to delete this letter of understanding makes sense. There is only one local at St. Lawrence,
so this letter really is redundant.
Letter of Understanding - Initiatives/Opportunities
During the last round of bargaining this was a contentious issue. We eventually agreed leave this as
Letter of Understanding as we thought these could be good professional development opportunities if
properly used. The colleges, however, have abused this letter. The result is that very few people find
themselves hired into these positions as a part of professional development. Management now seeks to
make the letter a permanent part of our collective agreement.
Appendix G - Summer Student Workers
Management revealed what they wanted to do with this proposal. They want summer student workers to
be able to work mid-April to mid-September. The start date would be fine; however, the problem is with
the end date. Why would these students work until mid-September? We also would like to see them paid
the properly-evaluated rate rather than minimum wage.
Benefit Booklet Out of Province/Country Emergency Coverage and Private Duty Nursing
This benefit was introduced by management to limit their liability to our insurance plan for out of
province/country emergencies. We have been advised by the Joint Classification Committee that overall
this is a benefit to our members. They are concerned with the cap for private duty nursing.
Letter of Understanding - Automobile Insurance
Management proposes to increase the amount of automobile insurance they will pay to those who use
their vehicles for the college. The question is how many people ask for this insurance now? The answer
would be very few. So this appears to be a benefit except that it really does not mean a lot for the
average member.
The parties agree that the union may raise the issue of tuition reimbursement and smoking
cessation/weight loss at EERC (Employee/Employer Relations Committee).
This proposal from management just doesn’t go far enough. It is our understanding that approx. 19 of 24
colleges have some sort of tuition policy for dependants. We would like to see this available in all 24 of
the colleges, but we also would like to see it administered centrally.
Contracting Out letter shall become an Appendix to the Collective Agreement.
This is a decent proposal as a start, but we would rather see a proposal that does not allow anycontracting out. A number of colleges have lost staff due to contracting out and we believe it must be
stopped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)