CUPE 1975 News

STRIKE !

2007-11-01T21:23:00.000-06:00

CUPE 1975 Members:
Most of you will have already received an automated phone message &/or been contacted by a Picket Captain by this point.
Despite an incredible turnout and massive show of support at our rally on Tuesday, the employer doesn’t believe we are serious enough to walk out to get a fair contract.
During our meetings in Regina Wednesday, our bargaining team was in contact with the provincial Conciliator. He in turn was in contact with the Universities, to see if they were prepared to move from their unreasonable position. Unfortunately, they remain unwilling to drop their demands for concessions from our members. As such, Conciliator Doug Forseth will not reconvene the parties.
As you likely know by now, CUPE 1975 members are on strike beginning 7:00 am tomorrow (Friday) morning. We will be running 3 picket shifts (4 hours each) at several locations around the perimeter of campus. If you don’t know where you are supposed to be, you can call our strike headquarters (1012 Central Avenue) at 374-6580. They can help you locate your picket duty, or you can check in with the picket captain at the Wiggins Avenue entrance at 9:00 am.
Picket Captains should be able to answer most of your questions. Make sure when you report for picket duty or leave your shift that you sign in AND out... or you won’t receive strike pay for that shift.
Your bargaining committee and executive members will be around throughout the day, both on the picket lines and at strike headquarters, should you need to speak with any of them.

2007-11-01T15:03:00.001-06:00

Open Letter to All Employees who are members of CUPE 1975

Subject: Harassment and Bullying in the Workplace

As we bargain a new collective agreement with the University and face the potential of further job action, we are aware that this is a difficult time for the Community.

Ensuring a safe and respectful environment is everyone’s responsibility. We must keep in mind that we will all continue to work together once an agreement has been reached.

The employer indicates that they have been approached by members of CUPE 1975 who are afraid. They have reported bullying, harassment, intimidating behavior and threats being made by union members against other members if they do not participate in job action. CUPE also had many members making these same accusations against their supervisors and managers.

If accurate in their description of the allegations, this behavior is appalling and will not be tolerated. It is in violation of Occupational Health and Safety Act (Section 4), the Trade Union Act (Section 11 (2), our collective agreement and CUPE’s Equality Statement.

CUPE is committed to providing you with a safe environment. We will take complaints received seriously and investigate them fully.

If you have concerns about your safety or have been subject to harassing behavior please contact your picket captain or the union office at 374-6580.

Together we will move as quickly as possible to resolve this situation.

Thank you

CUPE Local 1975

UPDATE

2007-10-31T15:51:00.000-06:00

CUPE 1975/1975-01
UPDATE
Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The CUPE 1975/1975-01 Joint Bargaining Committee met today in Regina. We evaluated feedback from the rallies at our respective campuses yesterday and arrived at a plan of action for the near future.
Tomorrow evening, we will be posting a comprehensive update on the Union website. It is imperative that all CUPE 1975/1975-01 employees check the UNION website as soon after 8:00 pm Thursday, Nov. 1st as possible. Be advised that you may also receive a pre-recorded voice message, so be on the alert for that as well.
This will be your fastest, most accurate source for the correct information on “what’s happening” with our labour dispute.

Rally Report

2007-10-31T14:12:00.000-06:00

“This is what solidarity looks like.”

It was an extraordinary sight. Shortly after 11 a.m. yesterday, hundreds and hundreds of CUPE members filed out of their offices and buildings at the university and created a procession that extended through “the bowl” and down College Drive to the bridge.

As one CUPE 1975 member enthusiastically told onlookers, “This is what solidarity looks like!”

“I’ve never seen such a huge mass of people on this campus,” Heather Wagg, the president of the CUPE sessional lecturers’ local told the cheering CUPE 1975 members and their supporters during a rally near the President’s house. “It’s a sight I’ll never forget.”

The two-hour walkout by 1,800 CUPE 1975 members at the U of S and another 600 CUPE 1975 members at the University of Regina was organized to send a strong message to the employer to get back to the bargaining table with a fair contract offer.

“By your actions today, you have shown this employer that you mean business,” CUPE Saskatchewan President Tom Graham, told the crowd. “You deserve respect and you deserve a fair collective agreement,” he stated.

CUPE 1975 spokesperson Wayne Foley commended the membership for their support.

“We wanted to send a message to the employer today. I think we’ve accomplished that,” he told the crowd. “We hope the employers have enough sense to come back to the bargaining table and offer members a fair contract – one you so richly deserve.”

CUPE 1975 members at both universities returned to work at 1 p.m., but they haven’t put their picket signs away. If the employer refuses to improve its contract offer, more job action is expected.

Rally Today

2007-10-30T13:01:00.000-06:00

A BOWL Full O' CUPE's

more pictures
Here is this morning's press release

Important Message to CUPE 1975 Members

2007-10-29T16:02:00.000-06:00

As you know, conciliation talks failed to produce a contract settlement.

Our negotiating committee made significant movement on all issues in an effort to conclude an agreement. Unfortunately, talks stalled over benefits, wages and the employer’s performance reviews.

As a result, we will commence job action on Tuesday, October 30, at 11 a.m. This is a major step and we need everyone’s support and participation.

All members will leave work at 11 a.m., go to the front of your building, and join your co-workers as they march to the university bowl, where we will rally for a settlement.

Members are encouraged to wear warm clothes and bring a bag lunch.

Show your solidarity and together we will achieve a fair collective agreement.

In Solidarity
Linda Reiber
on behalf of the Negotiating Committee

Beware of fear-mongering messages

2007-10-29T15:39:00.000-06:00

A number of members have called about the email from Administration and the coverage in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix. Our Plans remain the same as they were in the Sunday night telephone communication.

We should add that members benefits are covered, during job actions, by CUPE. Finally if you feel the University can't afford the economic package we are requesting to ensure adequate benefit coverage and a modest wage increase for all of our members. ..Consider how they compensate themselves .

Conciliation Report

2007-10-26T16:57:00.000-06:00

Report on conciliation
By Bradford McKaig, Chair of the CUPE 1975/1975-01 negotiating committee

Conciliation talks ended last night when the universities rejected CUPE’s last proposal for settlement.

Conciliator Doug Forseth adjourned proceedings, stating “the two parties are simply too far apart.”

The universities contend the union showed lack of movement on key issues, which is completely false. The union has moved significantly on virtually every issue on the table, including monetary items.

At the end of the day, we simply could not accept the employer’s position regarding benefits, as the funding that was offered became contingent on accepting yet another “… revised and rebalanced Employee Benefit Program.” There are already concerns that the proposed funding may be insufficient to maintain current coverage.

Simply stated, this means revisiting the process that last time around resulted in significant reduction in benefits. The surplus the universities are reporting probably exists due to the reduction in coverage as a result of the last “review.” We believe that without additional funding, this surplus will deplete prior to the expiration of the agreement.

The other key issue involved the arbitrary and subjective attachment of Performance Reviews in order to “qualify” for increments that our members are currently entitled to by the last CA.

The universities have represented their wage proposal as 17% over 3 years. This is misleading at best. There are NO guarantees that anyone would receive their increments. As such, the ACTUAL wage increases as proposed by the employer would be 2.5%, 2.75% and 3% over the 3 year agreement. It should also be noted that the improvements to Pension and Benefit funding should not be reported as “Wages” and comes at a cost… Other union proposals fell by the way in favour of this funding.

Barb Daigle (Associate VP of Human Resources at the U of S) is quoted in the University press release as saying “WE entered the conciliation process…” and “WE are disappointed at the Union’s refusal to entertain compromises or work with us to find solutions.” Barb Daigle did not consider bargaining with CUPE 1975/1975-01 enough of a priority to even attend at the table. Instead, she once again deferred to a contracted consultant to stand in for her and represent the interests of the universities.

The universities would have us believe that they are “listening carefully to the union,” yet it was only after our membership gave us the 89% strike mandate that they moved at all on any of the concessions they had on the table. Furthermore, at conciliation, they only moved on items after the union led the way. In the end, the employer refused to meet the minimum requirements for our negotiating committee to recommend a deal to our membership.

A letter of support from Paul Moist, CUPE National President

2007-10-26T14:20:00.000-06:00

Letter of support

Collective Bargaining Update From Local 1975/1975-01

2007-10-26T14:11:00.000-06:00

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.

JOB ACTION

2007-10-26T13:50:00.000-06:00

In response to the numerous telephone calls please note the following:

Members will get a voice mail at home Sunday night (in the meantime there will be more information on the Website).

48 hours notice means that we will be in a legal position to strike or take any action - it does not mean that we are taking job action in 48 hours. You will be notified at home in regards to any job action.

48 Hour Notice Served

2007-10-26T12:02:00.000-06:00

48 hour notice has been served... More information to follow shortly.

Thursday October 25th Update

2007-10-25T20:43:00.000-06:00

For the past 3 long days, your Bargaining Committee has been behind closed doors, working hard with a Conciliator, trying to negotiate a fair settlement for our membership.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, talks broke down. Conciliator Doug Forseth adjourned the process on the grounds that the 2 parties are just too far apart.

The Bargaining Committee is meeting tomorrow to determine where we go from here. Stay posted for further updates.