On June 22, Unit 2 members of the Bargaining Team met with the Employer and mediator Chris Albertyn, in what was supposed to be a concluding discussion on equity proposals. As equity has been a shared priority from the outset of this round of bargaining, the Union is deeply disappointed in the lack of preparation and movement on the part of the Employer, who has imposed a fast-approaching lockout deadline of July 10.
Before proceeding to the sidebar discussion between Albertyn, counsel, and the Union’s equity officer, the Union expressed frustration that the Employer persists in sending new proposals ahead of each session rather than continuing to work with Chris Albertyn’s draft. Contrary to the Employer’s ongoing statements about expediting this round of bargaining, this practice slows down the discussion by making it impossible to pick up where we left off in the last session.
In a turn of events that only compounded this frustration, the Employer then claimed that they had not received the Union’s latest draft on Article 12.04, and so they were not prepared to discuss any of the changes we had proposed. The portion of the Article in question pertains to a payout for bargaining unit members who are displaced by new thresholds for equitable representation. Due to the Employer’s lack of preparation, the session was ultimately unproductive, and a subsequent session was booked for Saturday, June 26.
Since the Employer has peppered discussions of equitable hiring with many hard “no”s, we began our day on June 26 by brainstorming where we might move to reach an agreement on Article 12.04, exploring limitations on the payout for displaced candidates that would not unduly diminish their workload or income. We expressed that such movement, as well as possibly conceding to a dated Letter of Understanding, would be contingent on the Employer’s agreement to representation thresholds based on the GTA in Article 5.03.
Turning to this last Article, we were disappointed to find that the Employer’s latest pass holds on several details that would diminish the Employer’s responsibilities with respect to Equity.
- They do not seem to believe it would be possible for the Employment Equity Committee to be staffed with members of equity-seeking groups
- They continue to use the Federal Contractors Program rather than GTA-specific studies as the sole source of external data.
- They refuse to use accurate and up-to-date terminology for equity-seeking groups (proposing “LGBTQ2+” instead of the widely accepted initialism “2SLGBTQIA+”)
In addition to stalling progress several months into our Albertyn-mediated process, these points of misunderstanding reflect a lack of institutional will to address equity issues in the workplace. The CUPE 3903 Bargaining Team closed the session by asking if Annette Boodram could be in the room for our next day together, as she has the knowledge and authority that the Employer’s team otherwise lacks. Scheduling of this final session is pending, based on her availability.
As we enter a final intensive phase of bargaining in the hopes of averting a lockout or strike, we hope the Employer can be compelled to make York University’s equity commitments real and not merely rhetorical.
Members are encouraged to attend upcoming bargaining meetings, and to vote yes in the upcoming Strike Mandate Vote underscore the critical importance of these proposals for our membership.