Collective Bargaining Update From Local 1975/1975-01
Collective Bargaining Update From Local 1975/1975-01
October 26, 2007
After spending the last three days in conciliation, we have come to the realization that the Employer wants a new Collective Agreement at the expense of our members. We remain committed to negotiating a fair agreement consistent with the Unions goals that we can in good conscience recommend to the membership and it is with heavy heart that we must advise that we have been unable to achieve a fair Collective Agreement for you. We have taken the support that you gave us during the strike vote very seriously and made a commitment to you that we would not lightly exercise that authority. However, in a further effort to achieve that goal, at approximately 12:00 noon today, we issued a strike notice to the Employer. Please continue to monitor the local website for further information.
We understand and are very grateful for your enthusiastic support but it is vitally important that you follow the advice or direction of your bargaining and strike committees. We thank you in advance for your cooperation.
We question the sincerity of the University’s commitment to the conciliation process when they had the conciliator hand deliver a letter to us asking us to discuss the provision of essential services in the event of a strike. That is the same as if we had delivered our strike notice during our conciliation process.
The University has indicated that they presented the Union with a final offer. To set the record straight, after significant movement on our part, we presented the Universities with an offer to settle and the Employer walked away from the table at that point.
The Employer has indicated that they made numerous compromises and have implied that we didn’t and that our priorities kept changing. We made it clear what our key priorities were right from the outset of this round of bargaining. That position hasn’t changed. We also find it hard to believe that the Universities accuse us of changing our priorities when they coincidentally list only our priorities in their latest bargaining update. We also made many compromises, took a number of steps back and by the end of the day we felt uncomfortable with our position because of the numerous compromises we had already made and still did not have an agreement that we were prepared to recommend to the membership.
Wage Increase and Performance:
With regards to the Universities statement of 17% over three years, the problem we have is that 6% of this wage is tied directly to the increments and is not guaranteed. Additionally we negotiated that 2% annual increment in the last round of bargaining and not this time. They are also tying these increments to subjective performance appraisals with no structure or meaningful recourse for employees. So if you have a good boss you will probably get it, but we all know that not all of our supervisors fall into that category. So the real offer on the table here is 2.5% in 2007, 2.75% in 2008 and 3.0% in 2009 which is substantially less than the provincial average of 4%, 4%, 4%. Most agreements have also included a $1000.00 signing bonus plus improvements to benefits. The University would have you believe that they just gave us the pension contributions and the unsocial hours premium – that did not happen without numerous compromises in other areas on our part.
Are regular increments tied to performance?
The language of the current agreement (which the Union agreed to in the 2006 round of bargaining) reads that increments are provided “to recognize growth in proficiency from experience and a satisfactory level of performance to employees.
We did agree to the language in article 11. We have never denied this – if there is something bad on your file, you may not get the increment but in that case we take the position that the performance issue is grievable and should be interpreted in the same way as Article 8. The Employer also proposed performance evaluations in the last round of bargaining but we countered their position by making the performance evaluations grievable, the Employer withdrew from their position. On that basis it is our view that they are prevented from now using performance reviews to withhold your increments. The Employer in essence is trying to achieve through the back door what they couldn’t through the front door. Another problem is that they already have a process in place for members not to receive their increment when you look at the Collective Agreement and the discipline articles. With performance appraisals they happen one time, they assess an entire year and the individual has no opportunity to improve their performance in order to get the increment. Furthermore, the Employer indicated that these performance appraisals will remain on your personnel file forever. Other implications could include the denial of advancement as an example.
The Union agreed to this language in the last round of bargaining, and now wants to revert to the former language because at the University of Regina, in a few rare cases, increments were withheld for unsatisfactory performance. (This issue is more appropriately addressed by a grievance / arbitration process at the University of Regina.).
The Employer is already tying the increment adjustments to performance in Regina and refuses to move on this position. We know that if they are successful in their argument in Regina, it won’t be long before the same practice is implemented in Saskatoon. While the Employer’s latest offer makes it possible to deal with this issue through a grievance/arbitration and we have already filed the grievances, that still means turning the answer over to a third party and we have to abide by their ruling. It is the Union’s view that the Collective Agreement already addresses performance and now the Employer wants an additional way to address the issue.
The Universities do not want to change this language but have now proposed that where an increment is withheld, the affected employee may grieve that decision.
They may not want to change the language but they want to change the intent of the language.
The Union has been informed that a successful grievance will address not only a withheld increment but also inaccurate information, which led to or formed the basis of the decision.
There is still no avenue to remove what might be negative information from the personal file. This “performance issue” could be as simple as being late once.
It is not in anyone’s best interest to provide increments to the few CUPE staff who are performing at a level that is less than satisfactory. This is inconsistent with the Universities goals of service and excellence, which we all share.
If an employee has performance issues that need to be dealt with we have no objection provided they are done in compliance with the Collective Agreement.
In 2006, the Universities changed the salary model to provide these increments. This was a move away from a single pay rate for most jobs.
The majority of our jobs did have increments in the old model as well, however, employees generally reached the maximum rate in two years. It is now conceivable that an employee may never move beyond the point at which they are hired.
The Universities offer is a significant investment in our CUPE staff and recognizes their contribution to the universities.
By tying the increments to performance the increment adjustments are no longer guaranteed and cannot be considered as part of the economic increase
The Union offered to drop this issue contingent on receiving additional benefits funding.
Had we been able to achieve improvements in the benefits area, we were prepared to come to a compromise on this issue and deal with it through the grievance/arbitration process
Red Circling
Although they met our need for an increased offer in this area, there is still nothing applied to the wages or pension for these members. In spite of that we were prepared to agree to this if all of our other priorities had been addressed.
Benefits
Here is the actual language proposed:
The U of S and U of R each agree that they will provide up to an additional 0.5% of EBP funding effective January 1, 2009 provided that the joint Non-Acadamic Fringe Benefits Committee/Joint Non-Acadamic Benefits Committee recommend a further revised and rebalanced EBP program. Complete with Union ratification of same.
What does this mean?
University of Saskatchewan
Remember what similar language meant the last time. Reduced benefits for everyone including a reduction in major dental and a reduction in the ability to use your sick leave before being forced onto short term disability. You gave us a mandate to try to get improvements in this area. Although we have no proof of what the actual surplus is, any surplus which may exist came on the backs of our members by reducing their benefits. Furthermore our Benefits Committee has said that we need 0.6% in order to maintain the current level and as additional 0.4% in order to make any improvements.
With regards to the surplus, the Employer would have you believe that the current benefits can be maintained without an increase; however, our committee members have told us it is not possible. If it were, why wouldn’t the Employer just agree to cover the benefits?
University of Regina
After a joint review, and a report from an independent consultant who indicated that the plan was already effective, the committee didn’t agree to the changes that the Employer wanted. However, the committee did take the proposed changes to the membership where they were unanimously turned down. As a consequence the Employer has not increased the funding in accordance with their obligation under the last Collective Agreement. So you see, do we want more of the same? According to the Employer’s language it places the Union in a no win situation. If we accept their position we do not get the fund unless we agree to concessions, which we are not prepared to do. We know that we need additional funding just to maintain our existing benefits, not to get any improvements.
October 26, 2007
After spending the last three days in conciliation, we have come to the realization that the Employer wants a new Collective Agreement at the expense of our members. We remain committed to negotiating a fair agreement consistent with the Unions goals that we can in good conscience recommend to the membership and it is with heavy heart that we must advise that we have been unable to achieve a fair Collective Agreement for you. We have taken the support that you gave us during the strike vote very seriously and made a commitment to you that we would not lightly exercise that authority. However, in a further effort to achieve that goal, at approximately 12:00 noon today, we issued a strike notice to the Employer. Please continue to monitor the local website for further information.
We understand and are very grateful for your enthusiastic support but it is vitally important that you follow the advice or direction of your bargaining and strike committees. We thank you in advance for your cooperation.
We question the sincerity of the University’s commitment to the conciliation process when they had the conciliator hand deliver a letter to us asking us to discuss the provision of essential services in the event of a strike. That is the same as if we had delivered our strike notice during our conciliation process.
The University has indicated that they presented the Union with a final offer. To set the record straight, after significant movement on our part, we presented the Universities with an offer to settle and the Employer walked away from the table at that point.
The Employer has indicated that they made numerous compromises and have implied that we didn’t and that our priorities kept changing. We made it clear what our key priorities were right from the outset of this round of bargaining. That position hasn’t changed. We also find it hard to believe that the Universities accuse us of changing our priorities when they coincidentally list only our priorities in their latest bargaining update. We also made many compromises, took a number of steps back and by the end of the day we felt uncomfortable with our position because of the numerous compromises we had already made and still did not have an agreement that we were prepared to recommend to the membership.
Wage Increase and Performance:
With regards to the Universities statement of 17% over three years, the problem we have is that 6% of this wage is tied directly to the increments and is not guaranteed. Additionally we negotiated that 2% annual increment in the last round of bargaining and not this time. They are also tying these increments to subjective performance appraisals with no structure or meaningful recourse for employees. So if you have a good boss you will probably get it, but we all know that not all of our supervisors fall into that category. So the real offer on the table here is 2.5% in 2007, 2.75% in 2008 and 3.0% in 2009 which is substantially less than the provincial average of 4%, 4%, 4%. Most agreements have also included a $1000.00 signing bonus plus improvements to benefits. The University would have you believe that they just gave us the pension contributions and the unsocial hours premium – that did not happen without numerous compromises in other areas on our part.
Are regular increments tied to performance?
The language of the current agreement (which the Union agreed to in the 2006 round of bargaining) reads that increments are provided “to recognize growth in proficiency from experience and a satisfactory level of performance to employees.
We did agree to the language in article 11. We have never denied this – if there is something bad on your file, you may not get the increment but in that case we take the position that the performance issue is grievable and should be interpreted in the same way as Article 8. The Employer also proposed performance evaluations in the last round of bargaining but we countered their position by making the performance evaluations grievable, the Employer withdrew from their position. On that basis it is our view that they are prevented from now using performance reviews to withhold your increments. The Employer in essence is trying to achieve through the back door what they couldn’t through the front door. Another problem is that they already have a process in place for members not to receive their increment when you look at the Collective Agreement and the discipline articles. With performance appraisals they happen one time, they assess an entire year and the individual has no opportunity to improve their performance in order to get the increment. Furthermore, the Employer indicated that these performance appraisals will remain on your personnel file forever. Other implications could include the denial of advancement as an example.
The Union agreed to this language in the last round of bargaining, and now wants to revert to the former language because at the University of Regina, in a few rare cases, increments were withheld for unsatisfactory performance. (This issue is more appropriately addressed by a grievance / arbitration process at the University of Regina.).
The Employer is already tying the increment adjustments to performance in Regina and refuses to move on this position. We know that if they are successful in their argument in Regina, it won’t be long before the same practice is implemented in Saskatoon. While the Employer’s latest offer makes it possible to deal with this issue through a grievance/arbitration and we have already filed the grievances, that still means turning the answer over to a third party and we have to abide by their ruling. It is the Union’s view that the Collective Agreement already addresses performance and now the Employer wants an additional way to address the issue.
The Universities do not want to change this language but have now proposed that where an increment is withheld, the affected employee may grieve that decision.
They may not want to change the language but they want to change the intent of the language.
The Union has been informed that a successful grievance will address not only a withheld increment but also inaccurate information, which led to or formed the basis of the decision.
There is still no avenue to remove what might be negative information from the personal file. This “performance issue” could be as simple as being late once.
It is not in anyone’s best interest to provide increments to the few CUPE staff who are performing at a level that is less than satisfactory. This is inconsistent with the Universities goals of service and excellence, which we all share.
If an employee has performance issues that need to be dealt with we have no objection provided they are done in compliance with the Collective Agreement.
In 2006, the Universities changed the salary model to provide these increments. This was a move away from a single pay rate for most jobs.
The majority of our jobs did have increments in the old model as well, however, employees generally reached the maximum rate in two years. It is now conceivable that an employee may never move beyond the point at which they are hired.
The Universities offer is a significant investment in our CUPE staff and recognizes their contribution to the universities.
By tying the increments to performance the increment adjustments are no longer guaranteed and cannot be considered as part of the economic increase
The Union offered to drop this issue contingent on receiving additional benefits funding.
Had we been able to achieve improvements in the benefits area, we were prepared to come to a compromise on this issue and deal with it through the grievance/arbitration process
Red Circling
Although they met our need for an increased offer in this area, there is still nothing applied to the wages or pension for these members. In spite of that we were prepared to agree to this if all of our other priorities had been addressed.
Benefits
Here is the actual language proposed:
The U of S and U of R each agree that they will provide up to an additional 0.5% of EBP funding effective January 1, 2009 provided that the joint Non-Acadamic Fringe Benefits Committee/Joint Non-Acadamic Benefits Committee recommend a further revised and rebalanced EBP program. Complete with Union ratification of same.
What does this mean?
University of Saskatchewan
Remember what similar language meant the last time. Reduced benefits for everyone including a reduction in major dental and a reduction in the ability to use your sick leave before being forced onto short term disability. You gave us a mandate to try to get improvements in this area. Although we have no proof of what the actual surplus is, any surplus which may exist came on the backs of our members by reducing their benefits. Furthermore our Benefits Committee has said that we need 0.6% in order to maintain the current level and as additional 0.4% in order to make any improvements.
With regards to the surplus, the Employer would have you believe that the current benefits can be maintained without an increase; however, our committee members have told us it is not possible. If it were, why wouldn’t the Employer just agree to cover the benefits?
University of Regina
After a joint review, and a report from an independent consultant who indicated that the plan was already effective, the committee didn’t agree to the changes that the Employer wanted. However, the committee did take the proposed changes to the membership where they were unanimously turned down. As a consequence the Employer has not increased the funding in accordance with their obligation under the last Collective Agreement. So you see, do we want more of the same? According to the Employer’s language it places the Union in a no win situation. If we accept their position we do not get the fund unless we agree to concessions, which we are not prepared to do. We know that we need additional funding just to maintain our existing benefits, not to get any improvements.
<< Home