Proposal Exchange Continues, Union Presses Employer on GAT Fund

Bargaining Team Report for the Week of Oct 16, 2023

Following our regular weekly prep meeting on Monday and a joint Bargaining Team (BT)-Executive meeting on Tuesday, we met with the Employer on Wednesday, October 18. We presented a range of proposals related to the Unit 3 Graduate Assistant Training Fund, severance for contract faculty, childcare, the grievance process, and the printing and circulation of collective agreements. The Employer presented a counter-proposal on pregnancy leave, and the union responded on discipline. 

U3 GAT Fund Proposal; Policy Grievance Filed on Non-Existent Surcharge

The Bargaining Team presented a Unit 3 proposal to increase the number of grants available under the Graduate Assistant Training Fund (GATF), as well as expanding who can access these grants to include organized research units and other hiring units. The GATF was created to incentivize the hiring of GAs in 2018 and renewed in 2021. Despite some bumps in the road, it is doing just that. Consequently, we also proposed to make it a permanent part of the collective agreement. 

On October 17, CUPE 3903 filed a policy grievance relating to York’s mismanagement of the GATF. The employer has been claiming since 2016 that hiring a GA accrues an 80% benefits surcharge, i.e. if a principal investigator wants to hire a member to work on their project, they need to pay not only the cost of that contract but an additional 80%. This has been a strike issue in past rounds, and we have bargained to increase the GATF to offset the alleged surcharge in 2021. This round of bargaining, the Employer revealed that, to date, they have never deducted the benefits surcharge. This means that some faculty members have received GATF grants in excess of the cost of hiring a GA. That the benefits surcharge has never actually existed raises serious questions about the Employer’s good faith bargaining. The bargaining team gave the employer ample time to give us answers about where the money has gone; as they consistently refused to give us clear answers, the union filed a policy grievance. 

Since the Employer is apparently willing to fund above and beyond the cost of hiring a GA, we believe much more of these funds can go toward increasing the number of GA positions rather than paying for an imaginary benefits surcharge. 

To explain why the GATF is a hot-button issue this round and part of a broader pattern of the Employer’s dishonest, union-busting behaviour with regards to Unit 3, we will be publishing a detailed history of Unit 3 in the near future. Stay tuned! 

First U2 Proposal on Severance, More Unit-Specific Proposals to Come

While Unit 3 has been leading the charge thus far in bringing unit-specific proposals to the bargaining table, this week Unit 2 brought its first proposal on severance. This proposal would make it so that leaves of absence related to a Human Rights Code-based ground do not count against members in affecting their eligibility for severance. 

While Unit 2 proposals have been delayed as a result of uncertainties tied to the Job Stability Committee, the Committee’s final meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 2nd, and we hope that this meeting will provide some closure and clarify the Bargaining Team’s strategy related to job stability. Unit 1 is also developing proposals related to the fellowship and minimum funding guarantee.

The Bargaining Team plans to present as many unit-specific proposals to the membership at the October 31 GMM as we can, with the goal of bringing them to the bargaining table in November. 

All-Units Proposals on Childcare, Grievances, and the Circulation of the CA

As a follow up to our childcare fund proposal from August, the Bargaining Team presented a proposal aimed at increasing funding for the two on-campus childcare centres, the York Co-operative Day Care Centre and the Student Centre Childcare Facility (known as the Lee Wiggins Childcare Centre). We argued that this funding needs to increase as the cost of childcare has gone up while the wages of workers at the centres has stagnated and dropped below what other childcare centres pay their workers. 

In response to this fact, the Employer claimed that this is a reflection of the priorities of the union over recent rounds of bargaining. Pushing back on this, we argued that the unconstitutional limits of Bill 124, a mere 1% increase over the total value of the collective agreement, imposed constraints on our capacity to deliver necessary funds to vital services — something we expect to be corrected in the near future. Throughout this round, the Employer has consistently downplayed the effects of Bill 124 while scrutinizing CUPE 3903’s decisions to prioritize its most vulnerable members, such as our decision to significantly increase the Ways and Means Fund in the last round.

We presented two counter-proposals, one on the grievance procedure and one on the printing and dissemination of the collective agreements. With regards to the grievance procedure, we proposed that in the case of grievances on harassment, discrimination, and disability, members should be granted significantly more time to file the grievance and to make the decision to take the grievance to arbitration.

With regards to printing the collective agreements, we proposed language that would require the Employer to bear half the cost of translating the collective agreements into French and require them to include an electronic version of the CA in each Offer of Appointment (or equivalent). The Employer seemed generally friendly to the proposal on electronically distributing the collective agreements. 

As a follow up to the many counter-proposals we presented at the October 11 meeting with the Employer, at the most recent meeting we took the opportunity to explicitly reject the Employer’s proposal on Article 8 (Discipline). As we have heard loud and clear from our membership, we have zero interest in expanding the Employer’s powers to discipline CUPE 3903 members. 

New Employer Proposal Sparks Debate Over Discrepancies between Pregnancy, Parental, and Adoption Leaves

The Employer presented a proposal on pregnancy leave, which aimed at updating language to be more gender inclusive (e.g., changing “maternity” to “pregnancy”) and reflective of different kinds of families (e.g., changing “two employees assuming caregiver responsibility” to “more than one employee”). While we are supportive of language that reflects the diversity of our membership, in terms of sexuality, gender, and family structure, we pushed the Employer to take this further. 

Specifically, we highlighted discrepancies in the paid and unpaid leave afforded to pregnancy (17 weeks paid, 61 weeks unpaid) leave versus parental and adoption leaves (12 weeks paid, 51 weeks unpaid). If the Employer wishes to adopt policies that meet the needs of different kinds of families, then at the very least it could bring up all parental leaves to the same minimum level. 

The Employer responded by arguing that this discrepancy reflects the standard employment insurance (EI) regime as reflected in the Employment Standards Act. We argued that to justify this choice in terms of the EI regime is selective and inconsistent since Unit 1 and 3 members are not even eligible for EI. Moreover, we argued that just because a policy is practiced by the government does not make it adequate to our members or reflective of the needs of different family structures. That a parent requires time away from work to care for an infant is true regardless of whether the parent was the same person who was pregnant with that infant. 

 Get Involved! Upcoming Bargaining Meetings

We’re continuing with a busy month of bargaining. In keeping with the principle of open bargaining, all members are encouraged to attend bargaining meetings (the regular weekly meetings and our meetings with the Employer). You can see more details about that and other meetings below, and we want members to know you are free to come and go from our meetings with the ER as your schedules require: you don’t have to show up right at the start or stay until the end—but of course, if you can stay, please do!

Check the CUPE 3903 website’s calendar for any updates. 

Bargaining Meetings with the Employer

This month’s bargaining meetings are taking place in a hybrid format. Join us in person in Kaneff Tower 512 (located just east of York Lanes) or online by registering in advance using the links below.

Oct 27, 2023, 10:00 AM–5:00 PM (in-person location TBD)

Register in advance for this meeting:

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZctfu2tqDsjE9cSFrzy6vffqq_9hKXNlNJm

Bargaining Team Meetings

Oct 30, 2023 01:00–3:00 PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84211348026?pwd=V2lwYnpMbG1VdmRBWHB5bHhqK3Y0UT09

Nov 6, 2023 01:00–3:00 PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86836769208?pwd=RUFjUWRSVHB4bi9Odi9wRjVDeFJXdz09

Nov 13, 2023 01:00–3:00 PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86836769208?pwd=RUFjUWRSVHB4bi9Odi9wRjVDeFJXdz09

Nov 20, 2023 01:00–3:00 PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86836769208?pwd=RUFjUWRSVHB4bi9Odi9wRjVDeFJXdz09

Nov 27, 2023 01:00–3:00 PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86836769208?pwd=RUFjUWRSVHB4bi9Odi9wRjVDeFJXdz09

General Membership Meetings

October GMM

Oct 31, 2:00-5:00 https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMvcuyrqT0pE912bq-UA66a0STPK0nosG78 

Accessibility of Bargaining Meetings 

For the regular bargaining team meetings, Zoom captions will be enabled. For the bargaining meetings with the Employer, CART will be available. If you require ASL interpretation or reimbursement for childcare/caregiver/attendant care or have any other accommodation requests, please contact our Equity Officer, Nadia Kanani, at cupe3903equity@gmail.com.

Due to the high demand for ASL interpreters, we encourage members to provide, when possible, two weeks’ notice if ASL interpretation is required.