Of CUPE 3903’s four units, Unit 3—full-time graduate students employed in research, administrative, or clerical work—has been under constant attack since 2016 when York introduced the fellowship model. The results of those attacks are stark: in 2015, the unit comprised around 800 members; in 2022-23 it had about 90, which is itself an increase from the years since 2016.

Information the employer revealed in the current round of bargaining—demonstrating that they have misled the Union about the cost of hiring a GA for not one, but two bargaining rounds—adds yet another layer to this deep pattern of union-busting.

To fully appreciate the implications, as well as the maliciousness displayed by the employer, we need to do a deeper dive into the history of Unit 3. This is a longer read, but efforts have been made to make the information as clear and accessible as possible. Sections are separated chronologically, and can be navigated to directly here:

• 2012–16: Protecting Tuition Indexation, Setting the Stage for the Fellowship Model
• 2016–17: Union-Busting in Full Swing
• 2017–18: On Strike for Graduate Student Jobs
• 2019–20: $74,000 Disappears from the Graduate Assistant Training Fund (GATF)
• 2020–21: Bargaining through COVID-19 and Bill 124
• Summer 2023: The Surcharge that Never Was
• Meanwhile, 2020-present: Same Fight, Different Front – Shifting Goal Posts on Unionized Work
• Present: Next Steps to Protect Fair Employment for Graduate Students

Continue reading →

CUPE 3903 Moves into Conciliation and Looks Ahead to the SMV, as Bargaining Team Unpacks Employer’s ‘Schedule C’

Bargaining Team Report for the week of November 27 to December 1 

On November 30th, the Bargaining Team (BT) for Units 1, 2, and 3 met with the employer. In addition to asking questions about the employer’s proposals and new job postings within Kinesiology, the employer also presented several proposals. Following from our first bargaining victory, where the employer backed down from their discipline proposal, the last bargaining meeting saw the employer agreeing to some proposals to extend incumbency for member-designed courses and language to provide unit 3 members with offers of appointment. Otherwise, the changes to ‘Schedule C’ were not substantial. Finally, with the start of December, we are now officially in Conciliation, and after that we will be moving towards our Strike Mandate Vote; to support each other and your bargaining team to get the best possible deal, vote YES on the Strike Mandate.

Supporting PKIN Instructors Facing Restructuring

The Employer first announced plans to restructure Practicum Kinesiology courses (PKINs) into what they are calling Integrated Physical Activity for Life (IPAL) courses in Fall of last year. Since then, we have been pushing them to learn more about these changes that could result in most if not all PKIN instructors–some of whom have been teaching at York for decades–losing their jobs. 

On November 17, we presented four bargaining proposals to cover, a) classification of work; b) language to deem long-standing PKIN instructors qualified to teach IPALs; c) course releases to allow Unit 2 members to go on leave to update their credentials; and d) compensation for work lost due to restructuring. These last two proposals were written to apply to all Unit 2 members, as PKINs are not the only ones facing restructuring; the situation at Glendon could also cause major job losses. The Employer has yet to respond to these proposals.  We also gave the Employer notice of estoppel, which means we are asserting that, going forward, PKIN instructors should properly be recognized as doing Course Director work based on a strict reading of the Collective Agreement, regardless of past practice. 

In March 2023, CUPE 3903 put the Employer on notice that we would grieve all IPAL postings that were classified as “lab demonstrators”. Yet, the postings the Employer provided last week, after months of requests, do just that. People who teach IPALs are clearly Team Lecturers, as they are solely responsible for student contact hours and therefore have principal responsibility for the presentation of the course. Additionally, the postings confirmed that massive job losses are planned: the long list of required qualifications proposed by the Employer would require virtually all current PKIN instructors to either go out and upskill quite dramatically or be shut out of work, due to inflation of qualifications. Most senior PKIN instructors do not have Master’s degrees but are highly qualified in teaching movement-based activity, as they’ve done for decades. We also reminded the Employer that our proposals offer compromises to address this. It would be to our mutual benefit to hash out this issue at the bargaining table rather than to spend years grieving every IPAL posting, as the Union has promised to do. 

Housekeeping Changes for Units 1 and 3

The employer has suggested a series of changes to the Graduate Financial Assistance (GFA) language, including removing historical numbers that clutter the article, and replacing the term “visa students” with “paying international tuition fees” to make it clear that the higher GFA amount is for those who pay the higher fees, regardless of visa status. 

Employer Responds to Unit 3 appointments proposal

The employer has accepted the Unit 3 proposal requiring that Graduate Assistants receive an official offer of appointment, similar to the one U1 members receive. These official offers will help clarify pay and other logistics that have often not clearly been spelled out to prospective GAs in the past. This a win for Unit 3!

Employer Makes Some Movement on Incumbency for Member-Designed Courses

Our proposal to increase the incumbency period for Unit 2 members who design a new course received some positive uptake from the Employer. We are particularly pleased to be able to get some movement on a proposal that came directly from rank-and-file members. So far, the Employer has accepted our longer time frame during which the course designer would be the incumbent candidate but has not moved on the number of times a member would get to teach their newly designed course again. We will keep pushing on this and other proposals that matter to members!

Employer Rejects the GJSP, Returns to the JSP

Though we presented the Graduated Job Security Program (GJSP) to the Employer on November 24, what we got in response was a return to the JSP. Unit 2 members do much of the undergraduate teaching at York for a fraction of the pay and none of the job security of tenured faculty. The Union has worked to provide stability through various programs, most recently by being part of a joint committee called the Job Stability Program (JSP) that resulted from the 2020–23 bargaining round. When members were presented with the result of two years of work, they were not convinced that the union’s version of the JSP (which is much better than what the Employer has now tabled) would adequately address existing problems with precarious employment. 

It is in that context that the bargaining team got approval from the membership to bring forward a series of proposals that would considerably improve the predictability and stability of work for Unit 2 members: the GJSP. Instead of engaging with our proposal, the Employer reverted back to its last offer at the failed joint Job Stability Committee, with some minor improvements  but no movement on issues that the Union previously told the Employer were most crucial, such as eligibility based on both Type 1 (course director)  and Type 2 (tutor) work, and a guaranteed course load of 3.0 full course equivalencies. 

On December 8, there will be a virtual Unit 2 Town Hall (from 11:30 to 2:30) to strategize next steps and counter-proposals. Please register in advance here. 

Continuing to Take a Stand on Solidarity with Palestinians and Safety on Campus

Once again, the 3903 bargaining team spoke at the table about solidarity with Palestinians (and students and faculty who exercise their freedom of expression to criticize Israel’s siege on Gaza). It is relevant to make such a statement in the context of labour relations because of the effects of the siege on Gaza and the October 7 attacks on members of the University community, to call out how the University has censured students and faculty for their criticisms of the Israeli state and military, in response to the implications of administrative reprisals for the safety of racialized members and their allies, to heed the plea to not engage in “business as usual” while there’s a genocide in the making. For all these reasons, we see the bargaining team as having a responsibility to press the University to defend its employees and students and their right to free expression. Instead, the Employer is making a very worrying choice—to “weaponize” the notion of safety, as it was characterized at the November 28 walkout, and otherwise to resort to the same old strategies of encouraging people to call on security after the fact, even though the increased presence of security guards can make racialized and trans members less safe. 

Conciliation: Moving toward a Legal Strike Position

The 3903 bargaining team is continuing to move the process along according to the timeline that has been presented to and approved by the membership. Having presented a full proposals package, having been in bargaining for almost six months, and with the Union and the Employer still quite far apart on major issues, we have filed for conciliation, the next step in our fight for the best possible deal for all members. Conciliation is a process by which the Ministry of Labour appoints a conciliation officer who meets with the Union and the Employer to help them reach a collective agreement. In addition to providing support to the Bargaining Team, conciliation moves us one step closer to a legal strike position.

Give Your Bargaining Team a Strong Strike Mandate: Vote YES, Dec. 11–18

We have a crucial opportunity to show the Employer the collective power of our membership by voting YES in the upcoming strike mandate vote (SMV) that will take place December 11–18. Voting YES  gives the Executive Committee a mandate to call a strike, if necessary. A strong YES vote also gives the Bargaining Team more leverage at the bargaining table to win concessions from the Employer. You can join the mobilization efforts for this vote by signing up for phone banking and departmental events where members can talk to each other about what’s on the table and how we can fight for it. 

Once we have a strike mandate, we’ll hold a “Red Lines” GMM at which the membership can determine the key items we are willing to strike for. No decision to go on strike will be taken without another vote of the full membership. Such a vote will take place, if necessary, at a “Final Offer” Special General Membership Meeting to be held if and when bargaining reaches an impasse. 

Get Involved! Upcoming Bargaining Meetings

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. All members are encouraged to attend both our weekly Bargaining Team meetings, which take place online, and our meetings with the Employer, which usually take place in a hybrid format. As members of CUPE 3903, you are free to come and go from any of our meetings as your schedules allow. Check the CUPE 3903 website’s calendar for any updates.

Bargaining Meetings with the Employer

Due to scheduling issues, all December bargaining meetings with the Employer are taking place online only. Register in advance using the links below.

Monday, December 11, 3:00–5:00 PM

Register for the Zoom meeting in advance.

Wednesday, December 13, 10:00 AM–5:00 PM

Register for the Zoom meeting in advance.

Thursday, December 14, 10:00 AM–12:00 PM

Register for the Zoom meeting in advance..

Tuesday, December 19, 10:00 AM–3:00 PM

Register for the Zoom meeting in advance.

Bargaining Team Meetings:

Wednesday, December 6, 11:00 AM–1:00 PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84937388030?pwd=WTlWOUZxb0lEZU1iYWViQ1NYTHRtUT09 

Tuesday, December 12, 1:00–3:00 PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81511501110?pwd=Tzh0WDlMZjlEMVEwVzRMTnFoUlVOdz09 

Monday, December 18, 1:00–3:00 PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81511501110?pwd=Tzh0WDlMZjlEMVEwVzRMTnFoUlVOdz09 

On November 24th, we received an updated version of the Employer’s Frameworks for Settlement that included several new non-monetary proposals. Due to the solidarity and mobilization efforts of the membership, along with the hard work of the Bargaining Team, the Employer has listened to our clear objections and removed the concessionary changes they had originally proposed to Article 8 that would have made it easier to initiate disciplinary procedures against our members! Despite this step in the right direction, the employer is still refusing to engage with the union’s proposal which would make the employer disclose what members are accused of ahead of discipline meetings. This, undoubtedly, remains major concern for members.

Furthermore, the latest Frameworks for Settlement are still far from acceptable. The employer remains silent or unmoving on our proposals to improve the process for harassment and discrimination grievances; in fact the employer still wants to amend the language to make filing grievances more difficult and force members to go through York’s internal processes! As we had said before, we not only need to continue to push back against any attacks on existing protections but we need to keep fighting to make those protections better!

With the Employers on-going lack of meaningful engagement with the vast majority of our proposals, including monetary proposals, there is a clear indication that the Employer is looking to see what the results of our Strike Mandate Vote will be before they get serious about bargaining.

Vote YES during the Strike Mandate Vote to show the Employer that we are serious!

We will be opening our strike mandate vote on December 11th at the Special General Membership Meeting, and it will remain open until December 18th. The vote will take place online, through SimplyVoting.

What is the GJSP?

The GJSP, Graduated Job Stabiity Program, is a 2023 bargaining proposal created in hopes that it would considerably improve the predictability and stability of work for Unit 2 members

Click here to read the plain language proposal.

When did the proposal get approved?

At the November 22 Emergency Special General Membership Meeting Unit 2 members overwhelmingly approved the Graduated Job Stability Program (GJSP) proposal that the Bargaining Team presented.

Where did the GJSP come from?

At the end of nearly three years of trying to negotiate a comprehensive job stability program with the Employer, first at the bargaining table in 2020–21 and then in the Joint Job Stability Committee that emerged out of that round of bargaining, on November 14th Unit 2 members rejected the latest CUPE 3903 version of the job stability program that had emerged from the Joint Job Stability Committee process.

The GJSP represents the Bargaining Team’s attempt both to respond to the message we received from members on November 14th —“We can do better”—and to respond to the urgency of moving the bargaining process for all three unions of our local along to its next steps. The CUPE 3903 Bargaining Team and staff developed the GJSP proposal by drawing on the diligent work done by many Unit 2 members over many years. That is, it both builds on and improves existing provisions of our Collective Agreement negotiated over numerous bargaining rounds and incorporates and consolidates some of the more ambitious job stability proposals that our Union has presented, but not achieved, over the last several rounds of bargaining.

How will GJSP impact seniority?

Seniority has long been a fundamental principle in collective bargaining agreements, providing those who have been employed the longest with additional benefits, notably some degree of job security. The GJSP does not propose any changes to how seniority is measured or accumulated; it does look to complement the benefits of seniority with greater job stability overall. Under the GJSP, the Employer would have greater discretion in hiring in order to fulfil minimum guarantees of work, but members would continue to enjoy the existing advantages of seniority in supplementing their guaranteed workload. This is consistent with the approach taken by our existing job security programs like the Continuing Sessional Standing Program (CSSP) and the Long Service Teaching Appointment (LSTA) program.

How does seniority work at York?

In the context of academic precarity in which we work, seniority offers even less protection than it would in a workplace characterised by continuous employment, and its meaning and value are actually quite uncertain. In our Union local, seniority is measured by the number of full courses you’ve taught, or their equivalents (including tutor positions), not the length of your service. Those fortunate enough to teach at a high intensity (four or more courses per year, for example) can quickly acquire significant seniority points, while those teaching at relatively low intensity take much longer to build up any significant seniority. The real problem for much of our membership is less that they have low seniority and more that they chronically teach at a low intensity, usually not by choice. Seniority and teaching intensity are often related, but they are not the same.

The precarious nature of our work means that for Unit 2 members, seniority doesn’t actually equal job security, even for those with high seniority. It provides no guarantee that you can maintain the course load you’ve been working at, nor does it even guarantee that you can hold on to a specific course If a hiring unit decides to no longer offer a course you’ve been teaching—or decides to not offer all the courses you’ve been teaching, no matter how long you’ve been teaching them—seniority does not, by itself, guarantee that you will be able to replace the lost work or earn a liveable wage.

What is the GJSP effect on teaching loads?

In the context in which we are bargaining and designing new job stability programs, there is some seemingly inevitable trade-off between guaranteed workload, and the ability to choose what courses we teach (to the extent that any of us enjoy this ability). This is a tradeoff we already make in our existing job security programs: the CSSP and LSTAs already take work out of the regular hiring stream. In the LSTA program, the hiring unit must fulfil guaranteed workloads—–incumbency is a consideration, but the guarantee of work takes priority. In the CSSP, hiring units can post courses for the CSSP pool earlier than in the regular hiring process. Currently, members may grieve an appointment made under the CSSP based on seniority; we anticipate that this will remain the case under the GJSP.

The goal of the GJSP is to provide more security to more people–but we are seeking to accomplish this within the reality of long standing precarity. Under the GJSP, a much broader swath of the membership would benefit from a guaranteed minimum course load. Once members have achieved a certain average intensity, the program would effectively provide a guaranteed teaching intensity, or a floor, below which they would not fall. The GJSP also envisions a kind of progress through the ranks so that these minimums increase as your average teaching intensity increases.

What about low-intensity members?

Although the GJSP tries to address some of the biggest holes in our existing programs, we acknowledge it still doesn’t capture all members—especially the large number of members who teach less than two full courses, or their equivalents. These members have never really been served by the job stability programs we’ve been able to negotiate. In part for this reason, we are proposing that the Conversion program, under which members apply to be hired as (or converted to) tenure-stream faculty within YUFA, be opened up to all members of the bargaining unit. Despite its limitations, the GJSP would mean a broadening of the focus of our Union’s job security programs beyond the small minority of members teaching at high intensity who are currently the only ones to benefit from the limited job stability protections in our Collective Agreement. The GJSP provides greater guarantees of job stability to those high seniority members through CSA level 3 and to lower and medium seniority members through CSA levels 1 and 2.

What’s so good about the GJSP?

We want to emphasize the importance of bargaining this as a comprehensive program that addresses members of various seniority levels. Historically, as noted above, our unit has invested much of its bargaining power in trying to achieve programs for high seniority, high intensity members. This has created a situation in which job security is not a right that is available to most members but rather a privilege to be earned only for those teaching at the highest levels of intensity over at least several years. The GJSP moves us toward improved and expanded job stability for contract faculty at York. It improves upon existing programs in our Collective Agreement (CSSP, LSTAs, SRCs, Conversions, and Severance) and combines them into a comprehensive, graduated program designed to offer a level of job security that even members who are supposed to be covered by these existing programs often do not enjoy.

What are some of the challenges with bargaining the GJSP?

Like the existing programs it would replace, the GJSP is not perfect and doesn’t go as far as we might like. Even with its shortcomings, this proposed program will inevitably run up against the brick wall of our Employer’s intransigence and unwillingness to provide even a modicum of reasonable employment stability to all but a few members of Unit 2. What emerges from the bargaining process will, in all likelihood, look very different than our current proposal.  We assure you that we will keep members informed of developments at the bargaining table, including progress in negotiating for increased job stability for Unit 2 members.

How can I get involved and share my thoughts?

In keeping with this local’s tradition of open bargaining, we welcome and actively seek your input and feedback; our Bargaining Team meetings remain open to all members to attend, as do our bargaining sessions with the Employer.

Since the GJSP was presented in bargaining, the Employer has failed to engage with any part of the proposal. CUPE 3903 is a member-driven local, and all proposals are drafted and brought to the table with the guidance and approval of membership. It is time, once again, to hear from Unit 2 on how to move forward with Job Stability Proposals this round of bargaining.

We’re stronger together! Join us and other CUPE locals to talk bargaining, solidarity and building community. All members are welcome!

Event location: GSU Pub at UofT St. George campus (16 Bancroft Ave, Toronto)
Date & Time: December 5th at 5pm

Free Food and non-alcoholic drinks will be provided and a cash bar is available for those who wish to purchase alcohol.

Apply to the Teaching Development Fund by February 1st!

The deadline for the Teaching Development Fund is February 1, 2024. In order to apply, follow the directions in the TDF application form (Word version here). Application documents must be submitted using the MACH form linked in the form. References should be sent to teaching@yorku.ca.

The Teaching Development Fund assists Unit 2 members in the development of a new program of study, new courses and teaching materials, or teaching skills. There are five minor teaching development grants of $3,000, as well as two major grants equivalent to one course directorship. Only contract faculty who have held at least one Type 1 or equivalent position in each of the two years prior to the start of this contract year will be eligible for the major grants. The TDF is adjudicated jointly by CUPE 3903 and the Teaching Commons.

CUPE 3903 Bargaining Team Finalizes Package and Prepares for Next Stage of Negotiations

Bargaining Team Report for the week of November 20-24 

As we close in on our sixth month of collective bargaining for Units 1, 2 and 3, the CUPE 3903 Bargaining Team (BT) has finalized our proposal package. Although we expected to receive a complete response to our proposals this month, the Employer still has yet to respond to any of our major monetary items, including health benefits, and has refused to indicate whether and when we might expect a response. 

BT Proposes New Graduated Job Security Program

Our package now includes a Graduated Job Security Program (GJSP) that would considerably improve the predictability and stability of work for Unit 2 members. This proposal was drafted in response to the unacceptable outcome of the Job Stability Committee, a joint committee of the Union and Employer that was supposed to develop a comprehensive job stability program. The BT is excited about how this new proposal addresses the needs of Unit 2 members at various levels of seniority and teaching intensity, and with a view to equity. 

Unit 2 members of the BT presented the GJSP in bargaining on November 24. The Employer had several questions about the ability to fulfil a guaranteed workload and the source of incentive funding for conversion appointments. While these are important questions for university management to resolve, they are not insurmountable, and we look forward to the Employer’s bargaining team demonstrating their stated commitment to alleviate the precarity of contract faculty at York University.

Employer’s Framework for Settlement Still Incomplete

The Employer first introduced a “Framework for Settlement” for each bargaining unit on October 27, but the package was incomplete. On November 24, we received an updated version that included several new non-monetary proposals. We take it as a positive sign that the Employer has listened to our clear objections and removed the concessionary changes they had originally proposed to Article 8 that would have made it easier to initiate disciplinary procedures against our members. However, on the whole these latest Frameworks for Settlement are far from a deal the BT would find acceptable. As well as being silent or unmoving on our proposals to address racialized violence and overwork, the Frameworks are still unresponsive to our proposals on health benefits and other monetary items. When pressed on the question of benefits, the Employer stated that they are not ready to indicate anything further at this time. To the 3903 bargaining team, that’s a clear indication that the Employer is looking to see what the results of our Strike Mandate Vote will be before they get serious about bargaining. (See our Bargaining Proposals webpage for copies of all proposals made by both sides, including the Employer’s updated Frameworks for Settlement.)

Employer Continues to Downplay Concerns about Campus Safety

The BT has continued to press the Employer at the table about multiple safety concerns on campus. Since the Tik Tok pranks that occurred some weeks ago, the Employer has not developed or shared a comprehensive and proactive safety plan. This is deeply concerning given a trend of targeting gender studies classes that had a very recent and violent manifestation in a gender studies classroom at the University of Waterloo this past summer. The Employer must do better on this question, lest they embolden the perpetrators of these pranks and disruptions give way to violence in our workplace.

Likewise, the BT has repeatedly called on the Employer to acknowledge the ongoing siege and genocide in Gaza and to join calls for a ceasefire instead of disciplining students, faculty, and organizations that have spoken and agitated for a free Palestine. We are disappointed to see the Employer frame these calls as distractions from the task of collective bargaining when many of our members and allies are experiencing first hand and in real time the material and political consequences of the university’s repression of pro-Palestinian activism, including police raids and arrests, workplace suspensions, and doxxing in the media. At the table and elsewhere, we will continue to refuse the Employer’s willful disregard of their role in these shameful developments.

Next Steps: Moving to Conciliation and a Strong Strike Mandate

Now that the BT has presented a full proposal package that addresses many of the issues facing members of Units 1, 2, and 3, it’s time to advance to the next step of the collective bargaining process. It’s time to show the Employer the collective power of our membership by returning a strong strike mandate. Our strike mandate vote will take place Dec. 11-18. You can join the mobilization efforts for this vote by signing up for phone banking and departmental events where members can talk to each other about what’s on the table and how we can fight for it. Once we have a strike mandate, we’ll hold a Red Lines GMM where the membership can determine the key items we are willing to strike over. Meanwhile, if we continue to see a lack of meaningful movement at the table, we can file for conciliation, a process by which the Minitstry of Labour appoints a conciliation officer who meets with the Union and the Employer to help them reach a collective agreement. In addition to providing support to the Bargaining Team, conciliation moves us one step closer to a legal strike position. 

Get Involved! Upcoming Bargaining Meetings

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. All members are encouraged to attend both our weekly Bargaining Team meetings, which take place online, and our meetings with the Employer, which usually take place in a hybrid format. As members of CUPE 3903, you are free to come and go from any of our meetings as your schedules allow. To attend online, register in advance using the links below.

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

Bargaining Meetings with the Employer

Thursday, November 30, 1:00–5:00 PM  (Online only)

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMld-upqTwuGN3CFB1OHp3lgtdmgy2WYrIS

Bargaining Team Meeting:

Monday, November 27, 1:00–3:00 PM

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

Wednesday, December 6, 11:00 AM–1:00 PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84937388030?pwd=WTlWOUZxb0lEZU1iYWViQ1NYTHRtUT09 

Tuesday, December 12, 1:00–3:00 PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81511501110?pwd=Tzh0WDlMZjlEMVEwVzRMTnFoUlVOdz09 

Thursday, December 19, 1:00–3:00 PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81511501110?pwd=Tzh0WDlMZjlEMVEwVzRMTnFoUlVOdz09 

Finalizing proposals and preparing for a strike mandate vote.

Bargaining Team Report for the week of November 13-17 

We are reaching a critical point in bargaining, and we need your participation. The Bargaining Team has nearly completed our union’s proposal package for the 2023-2026 Collective Agreement. In response to the Employer’s lack of response to our demands, and their wholly unsatisfactory (and so far largely incomplete) ‘settlement proposal’, we are preparing for a strike mandate vote. 

Strike Mandate Vote, December 11-18

Since April, the BT has been working to create fair proposals that respond to members’ stated needs and that would strengthen our collective agreements.

So far, the Employer has not acknowledged the majority of our proposals, nor have we been met with proposals from the employer that address the unstable situations that our members are facing: from insufficient wages, to failed grievance processes, to the ongoing precarity of work contracts. 

By voting yes in the strike mandate vote, we signal to the employer that they need to take our situations seriously and engage meaningfully with our proposals, and fast. Voting yes in the strike mandate vote means a faster bargaining process that will increase our collective security. We are in this together.

Emergency SGMM on Job Stability: Wednesday, November 22 at 1 P.M.

As in many past years, we are addressing job security at the bargaining table this round, and we need direction from you.

The Job Stability Committee (JSC) for the past two years has been attempting to develop a comprehensive job stability program that would serve members at all levels of seniority. At the Nov. 14th SGMM, Unit two members indicated they were not satisfied with the current version of a job stability program that’s come out of the JSC.  We are requesting your attendance on the 22nd to help us pivot to other proposals for  job security programs in a way that balances speed and the will of the membership. 

While the focus of this meeting is for Unit 2s and their job stability, we need  all members to come out, both for quorum and as we will also be having a discussion around our wage proposals and how we should respond to the wage increases outlined in the Employer’s settlement proposal.

Please register in advance for this meeting and join us on Wednesday November 22nd. 

Union Bargaining Team Looks to Future Technology Changes and Workers’ Needs; Next Up: Counter-Proposals

Last week, the BT presented proposals on technological change to the employer. These proposals offer protection to union members against reduction in work that might arise from new technology (including increased use of AI in classrooms). The proposals also include language to ensure that union members will receive training on any new technology introduced that they are required to use during a work assignment.

Once we present our proposals on job stability for Unit 2, we will be turning fully to passing counter-proposals. Of these are two counters to the employer’s proposals on grievances, mediation and arbitration. We want to ensure with these counter proposals that grievances are processed as fast as possible while not sacrificing the necessary protections that ensure due process for matters relating to racial or sexual violence and other equity matters.

Meanwhile, we hope to hear from the employer on the elusive ‘Schedule C’ that they have put off presenting for nearly a month, when they first gave us their “Framework for Settlement” on October 27. 

Get Involved! Upcoming Bargaining Meetings

We are close to entering the conciliation stage of bargaining! Get involved in this next critical stage that includes identifying our “red lines” (that is, key demands we are willing to strike over) and preparing for a strike mandate vote.

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. All members are encouraged to attend bargaining meetings (the regular weekly meetings and our meetings with the Employer). As members of CUPE 3903, you are free to come and go from our meetings with the ER as your schedules allow.

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

Bargaining Meetings with the Employer

With the exception of November 30, this month’s bargaining meetings are taking place in a hybrid format. Join us in person in Kaneff Tower 519 (located just east of York Lanes) or online via Zoom by registering in advance using the links below.

Friday Nov 24 – 10AM-5PM

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZ0sd-ivrD0tHN1hit1wNSdYqT5RDaFTjg7v

Thursday Nov 30 – 1PM-5PM  (Online)

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMld-upqTwuGN3CFB1OHp3lgtdmgy2WYrIS

Bargaining Team Meeting:

Nov 27, 2023 1:00–3:00 PM

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