Have any questions?
416-415-5000 ext 2200
opseu556@gmail.com
OPSEU Local 556OPSEU Local 556
  • Our local
    • Our Team
    • Who are we – a letter from Tom Tomassi
    • Contact Us
    • Membership & Sign-up
  • Collective Agreement
    • Documents
    • Benefits
      • Dental and Extended Health
      • OPSEU Member Discounts
      • Pension
      • Scholarships & Bursaries
    • Full time
      • The SWF Process
      • SWF FAQs
      • Quick SWF Check
      • CWMG (College Workload Monitoring Group)
    • Partial-Load Faculty FAQ
    • Complaint Resolution
    • Coordinators
    • Diversity, Equity & Human Rights Services
    • Health & Safety
    • New Hires
    • Salary
    • Seniority Lists
    • Sick Leave & Accommodation
  • readings and links
    • Newsletter
    • Links
    • Contract Faculty Campaign
  • Covid-19
    • Our rights and responsibilities in the pandemic.
  • Bargaining 2021
  • Our local
    • Our Team
    • Who are we – a letter from Tom Tomassi
    • Contact Us
    • Membership & Sign-up
  • Collective Agreement
    • Documents
    • Benefits
      • Dental and Extended Health
      • OPSEU Member Discounts
      • Pension
      • Scholarships & Bursaries
    • Full time
      • The SWF Process
      • SWF FAQs
      • Quick SWF Check
      • CWMG (College Workload Monitoring Group)
    • Partial-Load Faculty FAQ
    • Complaint Resolution
    • Coordinators
    • Diversity, Equity & Human Rights Services
    • Health & Safety
    • New Hires
    • Salary
    • Seniority Lists
    • Sick Leave & Accommodation
  • readings and links
    • Newsletter
    • Links
    • Contract Faculty Campaign
  • Covid-19
    • Our rights and responsibilities in the pandemic.
  • Bargaining 2021

Bargaining

  • Home
  • Bargaining
  • Back to work: it seems that management is abdicating their responsibilities with regard to swfs.

Back to work: it seems that management is abdicating their responsibilities with regard to swfs.

  • Posted by Taras Gula
  • Categories Bargaining
  • Date November 21, 2017
After our first day back post-strike most of us are getting the same response from management - there will be no new or revised swfs to reflect either the extended semester or the additional work.  The bargaining team has drafted recommendations as to how to proceed to best ensure that our members do not experience a repeat of the post-strike workload issues following the 2006 strike.  While we have no guarantees as to what an arbitrator will ultimately rule, at this point it appears that apply article 11 is the most prudent course.

 

Bargaining Team’s RTW Protocol for full-time faculty: 3 or 4 steps for faculty to take

  • The union local is advising management that members will adhere to their current swfs. Those swfs have an end date of early to mid-December 2017 and faculty are not required to work after that date. We anticipate that the college will then issue revised swfs but those swfs will only reflect a change in dates ending December 22, 2017.
  • The member will then sign back their swfs within 5 days to their supervisor citing that the workload is not accurate pursuant to article 11.02 A 2.
  • The member will have a meeting with their supervisor setting out what they need on their swf to properly reflect their new assigned workload. If the supervisor agrees, the member can agree to their swf.
  • If the supervisor refuses then the member will refer their swf to WMG.

Please note – Any email communications with your manager around workload should include the following: “This request for additional time on my swf is without prejudice.  It does not constitute a waiver on my part to any entitlement to remedies and/or monetary award(s) arising from a return-to-work protocol or otherwise as ordered by the arbitrator pursuant to Bill 178, Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Labour Dispute Resolution Act, 2017, S.O. 2017 C.21 or in any other legal proceeding.

The rationale for the bargaining team (BT)’s RTW Protocol:

The back to work legislation expressly provides that our expired collective agreement (C.A.) continues to apply until an arbitrator makes a ruling to put in place a new C.A.

 

There is no RTW protocol included in the legislation although the arbitrator may also rule on RTW protocol.  However, since our expired C.A. is currently live, if we do not follow the process within our C.A. we fear that we will be prejudiced at the arbitration as the council will argue that we should have followed the process for workload complaints in the C.A. Further, that council will argue that, if we do not follow the article 11 process, we are prejudiced from arguing for any RTW protocol.  More concerning, by the time of the arbitration we will not be in a position to refer swfs back to WMG based on the Fall 2017 semester.

 

Our C.A. provides for an explicit process to follow around workload assignments in article 11.  We are to meet with our supervisor to discuss and agree to a workload.  If there is no agreement on the workload the member must discuss the disagreement with their supervisor and failing resolution can refer to WMG for the issue to be resolved.

 

If there is a change in circumstances, under article 11.02A 1(b) a member can be issued a revised swf to reflect the change in circumstances. A 5 week work stoppage would arguably be a change in circumstances.  Further, a change in the dates that a swf covers are not deemed – they are explicit and cannot be changed without management issuing a revised swf.

 

Right now our original swfs have an end date of early to mid-December 2017.  With our original dates in effect on the original swfs, our members are bound by the work and dates on the original swf.  Our members can stop attending class as of the end date on the swf and do not need to revise any of their materials because such revision was not discussed between the member and their supervisor prior to the issuance of the original swfs in May 2017.

 

If we are issued a revised swf, we must refer the revised swf back to WMG if the revised swf only provides for a change in a start and end date without a reasonable change to reflect the increased workload.

 

The council is abusing the back to work legislation and the absence of a RTW protocol to effectively use their final offer vote RTW protocol that 95% of members voted overwhelmingly to reject at 86%.  The council’s RTW protocol intended that faculty would not be paid upon our return from the strike yet we would do significantly more work to cover 5 weeks of missed classes that are to be taught in a condensed timeframe.

 

Finally, if members who have not been paid during a 5 weeks strike then return to work only to do all the work they missed during the strike, without any change in pay, within a condensed timeframe, the importance of the strike is diminished and a terrible precedent is established.

  • Share:
Taras Gula

Previous post

Back to work legislation has been passed: return to work protocol
November 21, 2017

Next post

Charter Challenge to Back to Work Legislation
24 November, 2017

You may also like

  • Polling times and locations (Thursday September 14th).
    12 September, 2017
  • Voting: Make sure your name is on the voter’s list.
    11 September, 2017
  • Negotiations Update: Demand setting meeting report.
    29 March, 2017

Twitter stream

Tweets by @opseu556

logo-opseu-556

416-415-5000 ext 2200

opseu556@gmail.com

Leadership

  • Local 556 President (intro message)
  • Membership & Sign-up

OPSEU Local 556 :: Representing Faculty, Counsellors and Librarians at George Brown College