Bargaining Team Daily News, March 14, 2024

BT Daily News, March 14, 2024

Today’s Events and Meetings

The BT members had several meetings throughout the day discussing responses from the Mediator and the Employer. Some BT members were also on the picket lines talking to members.

The BT attended the Special General Membership Meeting and answered questions the members had regarding the Bargaining strategy.

The BT contacted Erinn White, the Mediator, and arranged a meeting for the morning of March 15.

Negotiation Process – Breakthroughs or Challenges

The BT members started their day with the receipt of an email from Mediator Erinn White, stating that “there is no likelihood of reaching a settlement based on what is on the table.” 

In response, the BT expressed willingness to return to negotiations in a letter, emphasizing a shared concern for students and the urgency to reach an agreement. Our letter also noted that our streamlined proposals involve a significant reduction in our demands on benefits and collective agreement funds, aiming to keep the bargaining process moving forward, as well as noting several sign offs and proposals where both parties are close in agreement.

In the afternoon, the BT received a letter from Dan Bradshaw waffling on their willingness to return to bargain, indicating that “despite willingness to negotiate, the mediator sees no potential settlement without CUPE’s response to salary proposals,” and that the Employer seeks guidance from Erinn White.

The BT has made themselves available for meetings with the Employer starting on Friday March 15th, stressing urgency due to the impact on workers’ and students’ access to education and livelihood. Relevant parties, including Conciliator Erinn White, Sandra Shime, Leanne De Filippis, YUFA, YFS, and YUGSA, were copied in the communication.

Upcoming events 

  • BT-only Meeting with Conciliator Erinn White – March 15
  • BT Meeting – March 18 from 1-5PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82546415013?pwd=OG5BQ1BJK0x2Y1BVemd3Vm53bzArdz09

  • Executive +BT meeting – March 19 from 11am-2pm:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87692892839?pwd=eVhPOVA5ZTNPNEduWWJiS2g5dVF1dz09

  • Negotiations with the Employer (To Be Determined)

Employer Reneges on Offer to Bargain, Turns Back on University Community

Featured

This is the Bargaining Team’s response to Dan Bradshaw’s letter, March 14th, withdrawing the University’s willingness to meet for bargaining.

Employer Reneges on Offer to Bargain, Turns Back on University Community

The bargaining team for Units 1, 2, and 3 have been in communication with the Employer this week to schedule bargaining dates next week. As recently as Wednesday, the Employer had expressed willingness to meet, even asking for earlier dates. The bargaining team responded positively to this on Thursday. But hours later, the Employer reneged on that commitment, leaving CUPE 3903, York’s students, and the broader community in the lurch as the strike continues. 

Why this sudden about-face? The Employer is hiding behind the decision of an outside party who, as the Employer writes, “has made it clear in her correspondence this morning that she is not convening the parties at this time.” The outside party in question is the mediator/conciliator appointed by the Ministry of Labour in December as a step required by Ontario labour law to put us in a legal strike position. Contrary to what the Employer is implying, the parties are not required to use the conciliator (as a mediator) once the strike begins. In fact, in previous rounds of bargaining, the Union and the Employer have either bargained with a mediator who was not the government-appointed conciliator or without any mediator at all. And nothing is now preventing the York University administration from meeting with us without the blessing or help of our former conciliator. Clearly, this baseless move by the Employer shows that they have no interest in bargaining. Their stated concerns for the community ring hollow as they sit on their hands rather than make moves to reach an agreement. We remain committed to getting back to the table immediately and to finding solutions that will get everyone back in the classroom. It’s a shame that the Employer clearly does not share this commitment.

In its refusal to bargain, the Employer has repeatedly hammered on the Union’s requested wage increases while offering wage increases well below inflation. We remind the administration that we have moved much more than they have on wages and other monetary issues during bargaining. Since both parties tabled their initial monetary proposals, CUPE 3903 has dropped 6% on wages alone compared to the Employer’s meagre increase of 1.75%. And in our March 9 counterproposals, we lowered our benefits and funds demands considerably. 

For comparison’s sake, we invite the York University community to consider the salaries of York University’s upper administration: their average salary increase between 2018 and 2023 was 20%, not including bonuses, benefits, and other funds. Take Dan Bradshaw, the Assistant Vice President Labour Relations and lead negotiator for the Employer. He was paid $228,890 in 2020. And during the Bill 124 period, when members of CUPE 3903 were limited to a 1% increase, Bradshaw received a 5.9% increase in 2021 and a 4.8% increase in 2022, resulting in a 2023 salary of $254,972. Just two years of Bradshaw’s increases amount to more than a PhD student’s entire yearly funding. This is how much you need to get paid to tell workers working multiple jobs and visiting food banks that you won’t bargain. 

Our bargaining priorities are both reasonable and rooted in enriching the quality of education at York University for students and workers alike. We are fighting for decent wages during times of immense financial crisis, job stability for the workers who do over half the teaching at the university, and better workplace conditions that improve the learning experience for students. Our message to the Employer is clear: if you truly want us to believe that you care about the community, stop playing games. Live up to the willingness you expressed just Wednesday and come to the table and finish bargaining.

CUPE 3903’s Bargaining Team’s Response to Dan Bradshaw’s March 13th 2024 public letter on bargaining.

CUPE 3903’s Bargaining Team’s Response to Dan Bradshaw’s March 13th 2024 public letter on bargaining.

Dan Bradshaw
VP Labour Relations
York University 

Mr. Dan Bradshaw, 

We were pleased to read in your March 13 letter that you are willing to return to the bargaining table next week, if not before. In your letter, you express a shared concern for students and a common sense of urgency to arrive at an agreement. As educators who work closely with students, we want to be in the classroom teaching; as graduate students, we want to be in the classroom learning. Those concerns suggest to us that we should return to the table without the mediator if necessary, or with another mediator if we can agree on one. Accordingly, we propose to bargain on the dates we sent you previously, via Zoom this Friday and over the weekend, while we arrange a meeting space to continue bargaining in person next week. 

While the needs of students are foremost in our minds, we do not agree with your characterization of negotiations in your recent communications. Our streamlined proposals packages involve a significant reduction in our demands on benefits and collective agreement funds. We have made these changes in order to keep the bargaining process moving, including reducing our proposals on paramedical services, vision care, orthodontics, and extension of benefits; revising our proposal on the internal cap; and withdrawing three other proposals entirely. We have also withdrawn our proposals to increase the Professional Development Fund, as well as five other funds. Contrary to the Employer’s March 13 letter, CUPE 3903 has responded to all past proposals with counter proposals or clarifications on the membership’s redlines, including that the JSP has been rejected multiple times by the Unit 2 membership. With that said, we have several points of agreement ready to be finalized and we are close on many issues, and believe that we can resolve what remains at the bargaining table. 

We also feel an obligation to express concerns about the administration’s comments on student well-being and pedagogical integrity. The Employer’s efforts to continue classes during a strike is troubling. We note that this position is echoed by YUFA, which has taken the position that the Employer’s current process around continuing classes represents such significant “managerial overreach and arbitrariness that they have filed a policy grievance against the administration. We urge the Employer to demonstrate our shared commitment to all students by engaging in meaningful negotiations without delay to ensure that York students and instructors are teaching and learning without constant worry about how to afford food and shelter.

To reiterate, we are available to meet with the Employer on the following dates: 

  • Friday, March 15, 2024, 10-5pm (online only) 
  • Saturday, March 16, 2024, 10-5pm (online only) 
  • Sunday, March 17, 2024, 10-5pm (online only) 
  • Tuesday, March 19, 2024, 10-5pm (hybrid) 
  • Wednesday, March 20, 2024, 10-5pm (hybrid) 

Workers’ and students’ livelihood and access to high quality education are on the line. We await your response and look forward to returning to the table in a manner that reflects that urgency. 

The CUPE 3903 Bargaining Team 

Cc: Erinn White
Sandra Shime
Leanne De Filippis
YUFA
YFS
YUGSA

Bargaining Team Daily News, March 13, 2024 

BT Daily News, March 13, 2024 

What were today’s events or meetings?

Today, the BT members participated in the following:

  • Townhalls of Units 1, 2, and 3 caucuses where they discussed wages, job stability, and other questions/strategies.
  • Picket lines had several Bargaining Team members actively engaging with members on the ground.
  • Working on the bargaining strategy after both of the town halls in preparation for the SGMM (Strike General Membership Meeting)

Negotiation process – breakthroughs or challenges

We have some news about bargaining:

  • The Bargaining Team sent several potential bargaining meeting dates to initiate a return to the table after the member approved a streamlined package on March 7 for all three units. 
  • We received an email from the Employer signaling they are willing to return to the negotiating table based on our suggested dates, and we have offered additional dates for this Friday, Saturday, and Sunday to get back to the bargaining as soon as possible. We will mark those dates on the calendar once the Employer and the Conciliator have confirmed. 

Upcoming events

  • BT Meeting – March 18.
  • Executive + BT meeting – March 19.
  • Negotiations with the employer – To Be Confirmed!

Statement of Solidarity with CUPE 3903 Members after Picket Line Arrest

Statement of Solidarity with CUPE 3903 Members after Picket Line Arrest

CUPE 3903 unequivocally condemns the use of police intimidation and aggression to stifle peaceful well-established picket lines following the unjust arrest of one of our members on Monday, March 4th. This was at a picket line that has been used to communicate and educate during labour actions for the last 23 years. The Executive of CUPE 3903 strongly denounces this arrest and is appalled by the reports of excessive aggression and force used against our members. 

We denounce any police intimidation of peaceful picketers engaging in a legal strike, which often disproportionately impacts already marginalized community members. We realize that this experience has not been limited to our picket lines. To quote PSAC National President Chris Aylward regarding their own experience, “These heavy-handed, excessive and unnecessary police tactics are an attack on workers meant to silence their voices and weaken their bargaining power”. We need to question who and what purposes were served by this aggressive police escalation one week into our strike.

There needs to be accountability for the way in which workers and students are being treated during this legal strike. Workers deserve dignity and respect in their fight for a better York University for all. Striking is a right that is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Fundamentally, when striking workers are mistreated and intimidated, that right is not being respected.

To this date, we have not seen this respect from the administration, rather they have gone through extreme lengths to undermine the strike by all means, including forcing courses to continue to run despite academic integrity being compromised. Students deserve the high-quality education they signed up for and continuing classes at half-teaching capacity rather than bargaining is not the way to achieve this. 

We understand that members are rightfully shaken up by the events of March 4th. What happened was wrong. Though we strongly condemn the arrest, safety is our greatest priority, and we will continue to liaise with lawyers and law enforcement to ensure that our members are safe. We are also setting up peer support lines and are here to provide additional support to members during this time.

Our strike is for proposals that will address genuine concerns at York University and will strengthen the quality of education for all. Our picket lines are peaceful, well-established, and community-oriented. On our picket lines, you will find both graduate and undergraduate students, faculty members, service workers, staff, and many other vital and cherished contributors to the York University community. We will continue to stand together to fight for better working and learning conditions for us all.

Bargaining Team Report on the Focused Proposals Package

Bargaining Team Report on the Focused Proposals Package

March 7, 2024

General Background

This past Sunday, March 3, members of the 3903 Bargaining Team met with Erinn White, the government-appointed conciliator. We emphasized the movement that we made at the table just before the strike started (a sign off and some counterproposals that the Employer has yet to respond to), noting that these are just some of the ways the Employer is stalling and refusing to bargain.

The Bargaining Team has been working hard to put together a comprehensive counteroffer to try to restart bargaining. Since our last General Membership Meeting on February 29, 2024, we’ve reviewed all the proposals to come up with focused packages on all-units and unit-specific proposals. Our method in the review has been to consider which of our proposals will benefit the most members; which of our proposals will benefit the most marginalized members in units 1, 2, and 3; which proposals represent what members have identified as red lines; where we have been seeing movement at the bargaining table; and where there has been no engagement from the Employer. We have streamlined and pared down our proposals package to include mostly high and medium priority proposals and/or proposals on which we have already had some movement from the Employer toward the Union’s position.

At the March 7 SGMM, we will be presenting a focused package for members’ approval. To make the package more comprehensible for members, we’ve prepared tables listing all of our remaining proposals in side-by-side comparison with the Employer’s responses: CUPE 3903 Proposals 2023–24 (simplified, by Unit)

Our new package consists of four sections, each of which we will be asking the membership to vote on: all-units proposals, Unit 1 proposals, Unit 2 proposals, and Unit 3 proposals. We are standing firm on some proposals, we are adjusting our asks on some proposals, and we are deciding that we have taken other proposals as far as we can for this round. Members can vote to approve the proposal packages as they currently stand or bring amendments to modify the content of the proposal packages. Once we have that approval from members, we will present it to the Employer through the Conciliator on Friday, March 8. 

All Units Proposals 

The All-Units Proposals section comprises all-units proposals on

  • Wages, benefits, funds, 
  • New supports and accommodations for members experiencing racial harassment, discrimination, and violence,
  • Other equity proposals

We have dropped or reduced many of our demands, including monetary demands. We have, for instance, dropped demands for significant increases to some Union funds (those that have comfortable and growing surpluses, including the SASSF and Trans Fund), accepted the Employer’s offer of a 1% yearly increase for the Professional Development and Equity Funds, and lowered or dropped some of our benefits demands( dropped automatic enrollment and addition of coverage for medical devices). 

In the all-units section of this package, you’ll see that we have not proposed any movement on wages. We have not proposed any movement because we understand wages are a top priority for members and therefore we need input from the membership to direct our wage strategy. 

There are many points of agreement across the 3903 Bargaining Team on wage strategy: (1) we do not think we should not move on our retroactive wages, which aim to address the unconstitutional effects of Bill 124; (2) we do not think we should not move on the eligibility for retroactive wages: all members who worked during the 2020-2023 collective agreement should be eligible for these retroactive increases, regardless of whether they currently have a contract. Where we have differing opinions and recommendations on the Bargaining Team is on the question of wages for the renewal Collective Agreement. In that case, there’s a difference of strategy about whether to reduce our ask, and whether this is the right moment to make such a move. This difference is a strategic question about timing and how we pressure the Employer to return to the bargaining table; it is not a disagreement about what wage increases the membership needs or deserves. 

Unit 1 Proposals

In speaking to members on the picket lines and at the Unit 1/Unit 3 Q&A session on March 5, many Unit 1 members expressed the need to hold firm for the time being on our current wage proposals (an all-units strategy question that will be decided upon by the whole membership). In turn, Unit 1 BT members have developed a focused proposal package to re-engage the employer by trimming down the number of Unit 1 proposals to make our monetary demands more viable. The Unit 1 members of the BT are attempting to prioritize proposals that generate the greatest benefit for the most members (such as wages and graduate funding) while also seeking protections for our marginalized members (such as international students). 

The Unit 1 membership identified wages and graduate funding as top priorities in the bargaining surveys conducted over the summer and in subsequent general membership meetings. Wages and graduate funding were unconstitutionally capped by Bill 124; hence, we are seeking significant increases — both retroactive and for the renewal collective agreement. We are proposing increases to the York Graduate Fellowship for international students to offset the exorbitantly high tuition fees they pay.

For the sake of reducing the size of our proposal package and focusing our monetary demands around priority areas (such as wages and graduate funding), Unit 1 is withdrawing the following proposals:

  • Article 15.15 – Increase the Research Costs Fund (#49)
  • Article 15.18 – Increase the Masters Bursary Fund (#50)
  • Rename and re-structure Article 10 (#65 and #68)
  • Article 12.03 – Ensure that accepting certain awards does not remove members from priority pool or bargaining unit (#70)
  • Article 14 – Include “mode of delivery” as part of academic freedom; give members right to determine mode of delivery (#71)
  • Article 15 – Flesh out intellectual property section to provide examples of “other creative output”

We are also amending our proposal (#51) on the York Fellowship (U1 Letter of Agreement “Additional Funding for Priority Pool Members”). We have withdrawn the aspects of the proposal that demand increases for the fellowship for domestic students. We have withdrawn the aspects of the proposal that increase the threshold at which “clawbacks” come into effect. We are still demanding an increase to the fellowship for international students to raise it up to $10,000 and we are still demanding that PhD 6 members of the priority pool be eligible for the fellowship. 

Unit 2 Proposals

The streamlined package of proposals specific to unit 2 is, based on what members have identified, and conversations amongst staff and BT members. Countering the JSP as offered by the employer has been named by members of U2 as one of the most substantial reasons we are striking. Accordingly, the new streamlined package includes our own ‘status quo’ proposals (73). We are standing firm on a number of proposals: Continuation of Library and Email services (61); Workload (74); Experience credit for participation (15.10), Marker/grader entitlements (and tutor 3 definitions, 92 + 62); proposals around Nursing (77, 76) and Kinesiology (LOU and LOI); improved access to the PER (86); Post-retirement benefits, which we’ve included in the larger benefits package (88); and Compensation for restructuring, which is particularly important in this moment for the whole of Unity 2 (92), 

We are proposing to sign off on the Request to design a course proposal (80). We are looking for direction from the U2 members of 3903 on Foundation course design (63), and Class sizes (64). 

For the sake of reducing the size of our proposal package and focusing our monetary demands around priority areas (such as wages and job stability), Unit 2 members are withdrawing the following proposals:

  • 10.04.7 Enrollment cancellation fee for Music Tutors
  • 15.15 Research Leaves
  • 15.16 Research Grants Fund
  • 15.17 Conference Travel Fund
  • 15.22 Tuition Waiver for Spouses and Dependents
  • 15.32 Credentials Leave
  • 24.02 Term of LSTAS and Compensation (adding timeline for notifications, etc.)

Unit 3 Proposals

Unit 3 has been waiting for a response from the Employer on the proposals that we sent them in February. This package, sent before the beginning of the strike, was already a “focused package,” so we have been awaiting response from the Employer since then. Throughout the bargaining sessions, the Employer had very little engagement with the Unit 3 proposals. We have just received a new package from the employer today which we haven’t got a chance to review. We have our own streamlined proposals we will plan to present to the employer tomorrow. We made a small yet important rewording to ensure that both YUFA faculty and 3903 course directors are eligible to apply for the GAT Fund. The changes were already reflected in the Memorandum of Settlement and the Letter of Agreement that was sent to the employer.  

Furthemore, Unit 3 has also withdrawn the following pieces from our Memorandum of Settlement with regards to the GATF Grievance:

  1. The Employer shall make a public declaration acknowledging that it misled both the Union and the wider York Community regarding the financial implications of hiring a Graduate Assistant, thereby leading to the mismanagement of the GATF. 
  2. The Employer shall remit a penalty amounting to $50,000 to the Master’s Bursary Fund. FGS will dispense a $2000 award from the Master’s Bursary Fund for non-priority pool Unit 3 bargaining unit members who receive a Graduate Assistantship, until such a time that the $50,000 has been expended.

Bargaining Team Daily News Report , March 12, 2024

Bargaining Team Daily News Report , March 12, 2024

The Bargaining Team met today, on March 12,  to discuss our strategy in light of our March 7 proposals and the expiry of the Employer’s attempt to move monetary items to mediation-arbitration, and to try to get us to drop the majority of our other proposals. Our discussion of the Employer’s offer reinforced our assessment of arbitration that we conveyed to members at the March 7 SGMM: that it is a bad offer that would only benefit the Employer. The offer, which called for us to send all compensation items to mediation-arbitration, accept the Job Stability Program for Unit 2, and to drop all remaining proposals, was not one we could accept. Those present at today’s meeting agreed that the best way for us to get a fair deal for our members is to negotiate it at the bargaining table. 

Strategic Planning and Negotiations

Yesterday afternoon, the Employer formally withdrew their most recent proposal package but stated that they are considering our March 7 package. We remain confident that the bargaining table is the best place to achieve the new Collective Agreement our members need. Much of our meeting today was devoted to discussion of how we can put pressure on the York University administration to do what’s right and return to the table. We also discussed the widespread cuts to Unit 2 work that have come to light over the past couple of weeks; the bargaining team has sought and received legal advice on the best way to challenge the Employer’s attempt to impose drastic job cuts and restructuring of work in the midst of bargaining—without any consultation or notification.  

Actions and Strategies

Following the members’ discussions and our lawyer, Mae Nam’s, advice, the Bargaining Team is developing a strategy. The meeting was adjourned with tasks related to that strategy, as well as tasks outlined to prepare for the Special General Membership Meeting (SGMM) on Thursday, March 14 from 5-8PM.

As well as discussing the process around our new plan for the bargaining team to provide daily updates during the strike, we discussed bargaining dates for next week. We have communicated these dates to the Conciliator and the Employer. See below for further details of when our next prep meeting will be, and when we are making ourselves available to the Employer to bargain. In the meantime, a reminder that members and supporters can use this tool to urge the Employer back to the table to bargain a deal that will ensure our members do not have to live in poverty.

In order to provide members with the most up-to-date information on the activities of the bargaining process during the strike, the Bargaining Team will also provide frequent updates on our activities. 

Next Bargaining Team Meeting

Our next meeting will be on Monday, March 18 from 1-5PM. All members are welcome to join using the following link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82546415013?pwd=OG5BQ1BJK0x2Y1BVemd3Vm53bzArdz09 

We have also sent the following dates the Employer and the Conciliator in hopes of returning to the bargaining and we will make these dates available on the CUPE 3903 website as soon as we hear back from them: 

  • Tuesday, March 19, 10AM to 5PM
  • Wednesday, March 20, 10AM to 5PM
  • Thursday, March 21, 11AM to 5PM

Strike Hardship Fund 2024

Strike Hardship Fund

Click here for the application form.

2024 Strike Hardship Fund Information

This page sets out the criteria used in adjudicating the Strike Hardship Fund. These criteria were set by the Strike Committee (SC).

What is the Fund?

The Strike Hardship Fund (SHF) is designed to assist CUPE 3903 members who are participating in the strike and is intended to supplement picket/alternate duties pay. The SHF supports members in purchasing items they need for picketing or alternate duty (Section A) and in dealing with financial hardship resulting from reduced income during the strike (Section B). We also administer the Medical Documentation Reimbursement Fund, which reimburses members for medical documentation required to demonstrate eligibility for 8 th line (alternate) strike duties (Section C).

Amount: The maximum amount to be issued per member is $600 for Sections A and B
combined. Leaves are an exception; see “Leaves” below for details. Except in cases of exceptional hardship, members are initially given a portion of the amount they are adjudicated for—80%—to ensure as many members as possible can access the fund. After one month, if there is enough remaining in the fund, first disbursement payments will automatically be topped up to the full approved amount in a second disbursement.

Please request the full amount you need in your original application, even if it exceeds $600, as there is a possibility that we may be able to raise the maximum later if the Fund receives
sufficient donations. If and when that happens, applications that have requested over $600 will be automatically re-adjudicated by the committee to see if they qualify for additional funds
without the need to reapply.

Section C is separate from Sections A and B and does not count towards the $600 maximum. For Section C, there is a $50 maximum per member.

Strike Participation (and Prioritizing Research)

To be eligible for the SHF, there is an expectation of full strike participation: that people either picket at least 20 hours a week or register with the 8th line to arrange alternate duty strike work, unless they have exceptional circumstances.

The SHF Committee understands that people will sometimes miss days picketing or other strike work and that people who do 8th line work may also need reduced hours. Reasons for reduced hours may include illness and injury, as well as other things that may interfere with strike participation, as deemed appropriate by the committee. They exclude conference participation, unpaid strike work, and research-related commitments; people are ineligible for the SHF when they prioritize academic work to the extent that their strike participation is consistently and substantially below 20 hours a week.

In the case of a member who has a high level of strike participation which is less than 20 hours a week, without an included reason (see above), the adjudication will calculate the member’s income as including 20 hours a week’s strike pay, but will treat the member as eligible.

If you are participating less than 20 hours a week (picketing and/or alternate duties) please explain this on your SHF application, accounting for any exceptional circumstances. If you cannot picket and are not registered with 8th line, please explain why not on your application, accounting for any exceptional circumstances.

Income Cut-off

For a Section B claim only (financial hardship), there is a pre-strike monthly household income cut-off of $2550 per member + $1650 per dependent (including a non-CUPE 3903 spouse), barring exceptional circumstances.

Note: Where the household includes two CUPE 3903 members, the cut-off is $5,100 so that, for example, two CUPE members with one child dependent would have a pre-strike income limit of $6,750. (In this case, we will calculate the fund allotment for the applications jointly and
separately and award the amount that is the highest).

Any external funding (SSHRC, OGS, scholarships, fellowships, etc.) is included in the income
calculation, as is Grant-In-Aid.

If your income exceeds the cut-off, you will not usually be eligible for Section B of the SHF.
However, if you are in exceptional circumstances (for example, if you have extraordinary or
unusual expenses), please explain them in your application or contact the SHF directly at
hardshipfund2024@gmail.com to ask questions.

Section A of the SHF (expenses directly related to strike participation, such as extra transportation, clothes for picketing, or expenses related to 8th-line work) does not take income into account; there is no income cut-off for this category.

Section A: Strike-related Costs

If a CUPE 3903 member who is eligible for strike pay requires something to help them fulfill
their strike duties, they can apply for this portion of the fund.

To qualify for funds you will need to provide evidence of:
need: Briefly tell us what you need and why you need it. For example: “My shoes are not
waterproof. I need a good pair of boots to keep my feet dry on the picket lines.”
cost: Provide the receipt for the purchased item. If you cannot afford to purchase the item
in advance, please contact the SHF directly at hardshipfund2024@gmail.com.

For transit costs, provide us evidence of the cost per trip (not necessary for TTC) and the
number of times you attend York to picket, as well as the number of times you usually attended York per week before the strike, to show your strike-related additional transit expenses. If you have other transit or travel expenses directly related to your strike work, please list them and explain on the form. Travel expenses not directly related to your strike work require a Section B application.

Section B: Financial Hardship

This part of the fund is intended for members who are experiencing financial hardship as a result of the strike.

Eligibility: Applicants must be a CUPE 3903 strike pay eligible member who either:
has participated in the strike (picket line or 8th line) fully; provides proof of income; AND had a
pre-strike household income of less than $2550/month plus $1650 /month for each dependent (including spouse)

OR

has exceptional circumstances.

Section C: Medical Documentation Reimbursement Fund

This part of the fund is intended for members who have had to pay for medical documentation to qualify for 8th-line (alternate strike work) duties. Members who require medical documentation (i.e. a doctor’s note) to qualify for picket pay for 8th line duties can receive a maximum reimbursement of up to $50 for medical documentation. This fund is capped at $2,500 and is a separate pool from the Strike Hardship Fund pool. Medical documentation reimbursement does not count towards the $600 maximum for Sections A and B.

Eligibility: Applicants must be a CUPE 3903 picket pay eligible member who:

a. Has participated regularly in the strike (picket or 8 th line hours), with the expectation that
members are participating in alternative 8th line duties and/or picketing for at least 20
hours a week unless there is an exceptional circumstance.
b. Has filled out the Accommodations & Alternative Strike Duties Online Form
c. Provides proof of payment for medical documentation. For confidentiality, members
should not provide the doctor’s note to the Strike Hardship Fund Committee. All medical
documentation should be sent to the CUPE 3903 Equity Officer (EO), Nadia Kanani by
email.

Leaves:

Members who would, bar the strike, qualify to begin a Leave (Compassionate Leave,
Bereavement Leave, Sick Leave, Pregnancy Leave, Paid Caregiver Leave, Unpaid Caregiver
Leave, Adoption Leave, Jury Leave or Transgender Transition Leave) that is available to them
under their Unit 1, Unit 2 or Unit 3 Collective Agreement, and who were not pre-approved by
the employer for that Leave before the beginning of the strike, are understood to be in
exceptional circumstances. If you are in this situation, you may be eligible for the Strike
Hardship Fund, with funding of up to $1,000. In some circumstances related to leaves, the Fund can reduce or waive the strike participation requirement.

On your application, please note:
a) the circumstances which would otherwise qualify you for a leave
b) the date when those circumstances began
c) any additional expenses you may be facing as a result of these circumstances, such as travel expenses or supplies.

We will respond with a request for any needed documentation. Please do not send medical documentation with your application. Medical or other confidential documentation will be reviewed only by Nadia Kanani, the CUPE 3903 Equity Officer.

You need to submit an application to be considered for a leave equivalent. Please let us know on the application which type of leave applies.

How to Apply:

Members can fill out the Jotform and submit the necessary supporting documents online.

Appeals:

The Strike Hardship Fund criteria are set by the Strike Committee, and they are applied to all applications using the same set of policies, software, and mathematical formulas. If you would like more information about your rejected application, please email us and we will provide it. If you disagree with the SHF Committee’s decision and would like to appeal it, there are two steps:

1. Please email the SHF Committee using the subject line, “Appeal”. The SHF Committee
will re-review the decision with at least three members to determine if a mistake was
made. We will correct any error we find and contact you with the result.
2. If you disagree with the SHF re-review result, you can then appeal the decision to the
CUPE 3903 Executive for a procedural review. To do this, send an email to the CUPE
3903 Equity Officer, Nadia Kanani, at cupe3903.equity.officer@gmail.com, with the
subject line, “Strike Hardship Fund Appeal”.

Questions: If you have questions, please contact the SHF Committee at
hardshipfund2024@gmail.com.

Criteria for the 2024 Strike Hardship Fund were set by the Strike Committee on March 7 th , 2024.

Bargaining Team Report for the week of March 3 to 10, 2024

BT Responds to Employer Mediation-Arbitration Proposal with “Focused Package”

Bargaining Team Report for the week of March 3 to 10, 2024

On March 7, the Employer sent new proposals to us. The new proposals arrived as the Bargaining Team was preparing to present its focused proposals package to the membership at the General Membership Meeting that same afternoon. Following a robust discussion on multi-unit and unit-specific proposals, the membership voted to approve the streamlined package in order to move bargaining forward while holding firm to our wage demands and other redline proposals. The Bargaining Team sent this focused package to the Employer and government-appointed Conciliator on March 9. 

Employer Sends Med-Arb Proposal as Membership Approves “Focused Package”

On March 7, 2024, the Employer shared with the Bargaining Team a “Memorandum of Agreement” for a proposal to pursue a mediation process for the Bill 124 moderation period (which included a deadline of 4:30 PM on March 11). That same day, the CUPE 3903 Bargaining Team presented a “focused package” of all-unit and unit-specific proposals to the membership at the SGMM, all of which the membership approved. On March 9, the Bargaining Team sent our focused proposal package to both the Employer and the government-appointed Conciliator. 

In our communications with the Employer and Conciliator, we indicated the following: 

“We will continue to consider any new elements in the Employer’s latest pass, but our present package can be understood as a response to the Employer’s proposed without prejudice mediation process and March 11 deadline.”

“While we are pleased with the Employer’s willingness to re-engage in negotiation with us, neither we nor our members are interested in pursuing the proposed mediation-arbitration process. Instead, we are presenting the Employer with the attached streamlined, reduced proposals package that members approved on March 7. While members voted against moving on wages, we’ve dropped or substantially lowered our demands on other monetary proposals, particularly union funds and benefits.”

Historically and in the past practice of CUPE 3903, the best collective agreements are those that are negotiated via bargaining between the Employer and the Union. Overwhelmingly, the practice of mediation-arbitration favours the Employer. The CUPE 3903 bargaining team is confident that we can negotiate the best collective agreement for the membership in bargaining and we aim to do this.

Currently, we await a response from the Employer. The Bargaining Team is meeting tomorrow (March 12) to review the package that the Employer presented to us on March 7; we will again report to the membership on March 14 at the next SGMM to summarize key details from this package. We thank you for your patience and cooperation.

Union Busting on Full Display with Police Assault on Sentinel; Unions Stand Together 

On March 4, the CUPE 3903’s soft picket line on Sentinel Road was shut down by the Toronto Police Service. The union has picketed on Sentinel Road for the last 20 years and the events of March 4 constitute a violation of our constitutionally protected right to picket. 

We were heartened by the swift action and support from CUPE National and CUPE Ontario, along with OPSEU, in showing up on March 6 at our “Right to Strike” Rally. An attack on our right to picket on Sentinel poses a dangerous precedent for strike action at York University and across the sector. As OPSEU notes in their statement, “The arrest of striking workers is unjust; it undermines the ability to collectively bargain, and it is an attack on the very essence of democracy.” We appreciate the solidarity we are receiving, and echo the words of Mark Hancock, CUPE’s national president: “Our key message to police here and everywhere is don’t interfere with our rights. There’s a storm coming. Workers are standing up and saying we need more; our families need more.”

What’s Next?

As we noted above, the Bargaining Team has presented the new focused proposal package to the Conciliator and has requested the Employer to come back to the table. We urge the Employer to condemn violence against its students and employees and bargain in good faith moving forward. 

As we wait for the Employer to accept our invitation back to the bargaining table, we will provide as much notice as possible when this happens. Our union practices open bargaining, meaning all meetings of the Bargaining Team—including our face-to-face meetings with the Employer’s bargaining team—are open to all members of CUPE 3903. Members are encouraged to attend both our Bargaining Team meetings, which take place online, and our meetings with the Employer, which usually take place in a hybrid format.

Join us at our next Bargaining Team Preparatory Meeting on March 12 from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM to discuss the latest developments in bargaining for Units 1, 2, and 3, and strategize the next steps. All members are welcome!

Please also mark your calendar for the following important meetings being hosted by members of the Bargaining Team:

All International students are welcome to a recurring International Student Q&A to get to know your Union. The next one takes place on Sunday, March 17 from 3:00 to 5:00 PM. Do you have questions about the strike, questions about strike pay, or questions about the hardship fund? We can help. We also want to make this into an e-social, so please—all International students—do attend. We are your Union! Let’s get to know each other.

We are also hosting a Teaching Assistant / Graduate Assistant Q&A for Unit 1 and Unit 3 members on March 13 from 6:00 to 8:00 PM to take questions about the bargaining process, how striking works, and your rights during a strike, as well as to address and discuss bargaining priorities moving forward. 

Finally, the bargaining team will continue to be out on the picket line with you! If you see us, ask us questions about bargaining, chat with us about the strike, and get to know us better. We’re looking forward to meeting you all! 

Don’t forget to register in advance for the upcoming Strike Special General Membership Meeting on March 14, 2024, 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Members are also welcome to participate in twice-weekly Strike Committee Meetings, including Tuesday, March 12 from 4:00 to 6:00 PM and Friday, March 15, from 2:00 to 4:00 PM.

Keep an eye on 3903.cupe.ca/calendar for all the latest events and meetings.

Bargaining Team Report on the Focused Proposals Package: March 7th 2024

Bargaining Team Report on the Focused Proposals Package

March 7, 2024

General Background

This past Sunday, March 3, members of the 3903 Bargaining Team met with Erinn White, the government-appointed conciliator. We emphasized the movement that we made at the table just before the strike started (a sign off and some counterproposals that the Employer has yet to respond to), noting that these are just some of the ways the Employer is stalling and refusing to bargain.

The Bargaining Team has been working hard to put together a comprehensive counteroffer to try to restart bargaining. Since our last General Membership Meeting on February 29, 2024, we’ve reviewed all the proposals to come up with focused packages on all-units and unit-specific proposals. Our method in the review has been to consider which of our proposals will benefit the most members; which of our proposals will benefit the most marginalized members in units 1, 2, and 3; which proposals represent what members have identified as red lines; where we have been seeing movement at the bargaining table; and where there has been no engagement from the Employer. We have streamlined and pared down our proposals package to include mostly high and medium priority proposals and/or proposals on which we have already had some movement from the Employer toward the Union’s position.

At the March 7 SGMM, we will be presenting a focused package for members’ approval. To make the package more comprehensible for members, we’ve prepared tables listing all of our remaining proposals in side-by-side comparison with the Employer’s responses: CUPE 3903 Proposals 2023–24 (simplified, by Unit)

Our new package consists of four sections, each of which we will be asking the membership to vote on: all-units proposals, Unit 1 proposals, Unit 2 proposals, and Unit 3 proposals. We are standing firm on some proposals, we are adjusting our asks on some proposals, and we are deciding that we have taken other proposals as far as we can for this round. Members can vote to approve the proposal packages as they currently stand or bring amendments to modify the content of the proposal packages. Once we have that approval from members, we will present it to the Employer through the Conciliator on Friday, March 8. 

All Units Proposals 

The All-Units Proposals section comprises all-units proposals on

  • Wages, benefits, funds, 
  • New supports and accommodations for members experiencing racial harassment, discrimination, and violence,
  • Other equity proposals

We have dropped or reduced many of our demands, including monetary demands. We have, for instance, dropped demands for significant increases to some Union funds (those that have comfortable and growing surpluses, including the SASSF and Trans Fund), accepted the Employer’s offer of a 1% yearly increase for the Professional Development and Equity Funds, and lowered or dropped some of our benefits demands( dropped automatic enrollment and addition of coverage for medical devices). 

In the all-units section of this package, you’ll see that we have not proposed any movement on wages. We have not proposed any movement because we understand wages are a top priority for members and therefore we need input from the membership to direct our wage strategy. 

There are many points of agreement across the 3903 Bargaining Team on wage strategy: (1) we do not think we should not move on our retroactive wages, which aim to address the unconstitutional effects of Bill 124; (2) we do not think we should not move on the eligibility for retroactive wages: all members who worked during the 2020-2023 collective agreement should be eligible for these retroactive increases, regardless of whether they currently have a contract. Where we have differing opinions and recommendations on the Bargaining Team is on the question of wages for the renewal Collective Agreement. In that case, there’s a difference of strategy about whether to reduce our ask, and whether this is the right moment to make such a move. This difference is a strategic question about timing and how we pressure the Employer to return to the bargaining table; it is not a disagreement about what wage increases the membership needs or deserves. 

Unit 1 Proposals

In speaking to members on the picket lines and at the Unit 1/Unit 3 Q&A session on March 5, many Unit 1 members expressed the need to hold firm for the time being on our current wage proposals (an all-units strategy question that will be decided upon by the whole membership). In turn, Unit 1 BT members have developed a focused proposal package to re-engage the employer by trimming down the number of Unit 1 proposals to make our monetary demands more viable. The Unit 1 members of the BT are attempting to prioritize proposals that generate the greatest benefit for the most members (such as wages and graduate funding) while also seeking protections for our marginalized members (such as international students). 

The Unit 1 membership identified wages and graduate funding as top priorities in the bargaining surveys conducted over the summer and in subsequent general membership meetings. Wages and graduate funding were unconstitutionally capped by Bill 124; hence, we are seeking significant increases — both retroactive and for the renewal collective agreement. We are proposing increases to the York Graduate Fellowship for international students to offset the exorbitantly high tuition fees they pay.

For the sake of reducing the size of our proposal package and focusing our monetary demands around priority areas (such as wages and graduate funding), Unit 1 is withdrawing the following proposals:

  • Article 15.15 – Increase the Research Costs Fund (#49)
  • Article 15.18 – Increase the Masters Bursary Fund (#50)
  • Rename and re-structure Article 10 (#65 and #68)
  • Article 12.03 – Ensure that accepting certain awards does not remove members from priority pool or bargaining unit (#70)
  • Article 14 – Include “mode of delivery” as part of academic freedom; give members right to determine mode of delivery (#71)
  • Article 15 – Flesh out intellectual property section to provide examples of “other creative output”

We are also amending our proposal (#51) on the York Fellowship (U1 Letter of Agreement “Additional Funding for Priority Pool Members”). We have withdrawn the aspects of the proposal that demand increases for the fellowship for domestic students. We have withdrawn the aspects of the proposal that increase the threshold at which “clawbacks” come into effect. We are still demanding an increase to the fellowship for international students to raise it up to $10,000 and we are still demanding that PhD 6 members of the priority pool be eligible for the fellowship. 

Unit 2 Proposals

The streamlined package of proposals specific to unit 2 is, based on what members have identified, and conversations amongst staff and BT members. Countering the JSP as offered by the employer has been named by members of U2 as one of the most substantial reasons we are striking. Accordingly, the new streamlined package includes our own ‘status quo’ proposals (73). We are standing firm on a number of proposals: Continuation of Library and Email services (61); Workload (74); Experience credit for participation (15.10), Marker/grader entitlements (and tutor 3 definitions, 92 + 62); proposals around Nursing (77, 76) and Kinesiology (LOU and LOI); improved access to the PER (86); Post-retirement benefits, which we’ve included in the larger benefits package (88); and Compensation for restructuring, which is particularly important in this moment for the whole of Unity 2 (92), 

We are proposing to sign off on the Request to design a course proposal (80). We are looking for direction from the U2 members of 3903 on Foundation course design (63), and Class sizes (64). 

For the sake of reducing the size of our proposal package and focusing our monetary demands around priority areas (such as wages and job stability), Unit 2 members are withdrawing the following proposals:

  • 10.04.7 Enrollment cancellation fee for Music Tutors
  • 15.15 Research Leaves
  • 15.16 Research Grants Fund
  • 15.17 Conference Travel Fund
  • 15.22 Tuition Waiver for Spouses and Dependents
  • 15.32 Credentials Leave
  • 24.02 Term of LSTAS and Compensation (adding timeline for notifications, etc.)

Unit 3 Proposals

Unit 3 has been waiting for a response from the Employer on the proposals that we sent them in February. This package, sent before the beginning of the strike, was already a “focused package,” so we have been awaiting response from the Employer since then. Throughout the bargaining sessions, the Employer had very little engagement with the Unit 3 proposals. We have just received a new package from the employer today which we haven’t got a chance to review. We have our own streamlined proposals we will plan to present to the employer tomorrow. We made a small yet important rewording to ensure that both YUFA faculty and 3903 course directors are eligible to apply for the GAT Fund. The changes were already reflected in the Memorandum of Settlement and the Letter of Agreement that was sent to the employer.  

Furthemore, Unit 3 has also withdrawn the following pieces from our Memorandum of Settlement with regards to the GATF Grievance:

  1. The Employer shall make a public declaration acknowledging that it misled both the Union and the wider York Community regarding the financial implications of hiring a Graduate Assistant, thereby leading to the mismanagement of the GATF. 
  2. The Employer shall remit a penalty amounting to $50,000 to the Master’s Bursary Fund. FGS will dispense a $2000 award from the Master’s Bursary Fund for non-priority pool Unit 3 bargaining unit members who receive a Graduate Assistantship, until such a time that the $50,000 has been expended.