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

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.