Category: USFA e-Letter

At the outset of this round of negotiations, the USFA requested information from the Employer (in August and then in October) for the purposes of negotiating outstanding issues concerning the College of Medicine, including:

• services considered to be academic services provided by Provincial Academic Clinical Funding Plan (P-ACFP) contractors to the university;
• a list of financial and other supports provided by the university for Research Chairs in the College of Medicine that the university has deemed to be independent contractors;
• a list of academic services these Research Chairs are contractually obligated to provide;
• a list of P-ACFP contractors who are contractually obligated to provide more than 40% academic services;
• the annual funding provided by the university to support P-ACFP contracts.

The Employer has declined to provide this information, and the USFA has filed a grievance based on the provisions of Article 10.6.3 (“The parties agree to make available to each other, upon written request and within a reasonable time thereafter, such information as is necessary for negotiation of a Collective Agreement”).

The History

While we were preparing for our last round of negotiations, the Employer came to us with a problem: the College of Medicine was on probation, and as a medical-doctoral university holding membership in the U15 the university needed to restructure the college. One issue requiring resolution was clinician faculty who were being paid as full-time academic employees by the university, but were doing mostly clinical work.

While the USFA was reluctant to lose members, we were compelled by the Employer’s argument that a new model of employment for clinician faculty was absolutely essential for the College of Medicine’s success. We agreed to permit a transition of primarily clinical faculty (i.e. most of their work was clinical rather than academic) to a new contractual relationship with the University and Health Regions. We agreed the Employer could offer current full-time MD faculty in the College of Medicine a severance package to quit employment at the University and sign up for the P-ACFP, and we stipulated that the severance must be voluntary. The negotiated severance package was offered to MD clinician faculty in July 2015. Employees who did not elect to take the voluntary exit package have continued their academic appointment with the university under the terms of the current Collective Agreement.

What helped to make the Employer’s request persuasive was that they also proposed negotiating new procedures for appointing in-scope clinician faculty whose duties would involve a significant proportion of academic work. The new model would require key differences from what is currently permitted by our Collective Agreement, and so demanded lengthy and difficult negotiations to bring principles of collegial involvement and decision making into appointment and review processes for new clinician faculty.

We were faced with two important imperatives:

• how would we determine what proportion of academic duties defines a full-time academic (in scope of the Association) when it comes to clinician faculty? and,
• what terms and conditions of employment would be applied to clinician faculty appointments (including hiring process, compensation, performance reviews, renewal of terms and permanent status)?

Talks were put on hold, however, when we discovered that while we were in the midst of these negotiations, the Employer had disregarded the terms and limitations set out in the Collective Agreement that must be followed in hiring new faculty, and had recruited and appointed new faculty in the College of Medicine to do primarily academic work as independent contractors providing full-time service under the terms of the P-ACFP.

At no point under the voluntary severance agreement had the Association relinquished its rights under the USFA certification order, which stipulates that the USFA represents full-time academic employees.

Current negotiations

A key interest for the USFA in this round of negotiations was to resume discussions on new clinician faculty appointments, and last July we tabled a proposal on terms and conditions of employment for new hires of clinician research faculty (it should be emphasized that we were not asking to renegotiate the settlement for those medical faculty who took the voluntary severance package and resigned from their academic appointments).

The Employer now suggests that all new clinician faculty are independent contractors no matter what proportion of their time is academic, and as such they do not fall within the certification order. However, clinician faculty have been classified as full-time academics since certification and if a significant percentage of their work is academic work for the university (teaching, research, administration), they should be in-scope faculty members. Clinician faculty members have historically worked anywhere from 20% to 100% of their time doing academic work as full-time employees.

The Employer has declined to negotiate this matter further, and it seems this is another issue that will have to be resolved through arbitration.

Differential designation for Clinical Professors

In negotiations we also have proposed discussing the “Clinical” designation for faculty who are not full-time academics in the College of Medicine. The College of Medicine Procedures Manual indicates that “Clinical” will no longer be used as a designation for medical faculty who are not full-time employees of the university—that is, clinician faculty contractors—with very different standards for tenure and promotion from what is required of USFA faculty members—will be given the same ranks of Assistant, Associate, or Professor without any differential designation whatsoever. The USFA’s position is that this would contravene Article 13.1.1 of the Collective Agreement, and we have indicated a willingness to negotiate a designation other than Clinical. This conversation is still pending.

The Employer has proposed changes to Article 3 (Management Rights). This seems to arise from a key interest for the Employer in this round of negotiations, that is, to address issues of authority and governance at our institution, articulated as follows in the November Labour Update:

Our interest is in ensuring that we are negotiating terms and conditions of employment and to clearly distinguish these from responsibilities and prerogatives that fall under the jurisdiction of the Board, Council and Senate as conferred by The University of Saskatchewan Act. The authority and responsibility for the academic affairs of the university falls to the collegium through University Council. Further, the collegium is made up of both in-scope and out-of-scope faculty – the USFA represents in-scope members only. The University of Saskatchewan Act guarantees a role for both in-scope faculty and out-of-scope faculty in collegial decision-making under the authority of University Council and therefore it is our position that this authority and responsibility cannot and should not be negotiated as a term and condition of employment.

The Employer has also stated that:

Deans and all academic leaders require the right level of authority and accountability for managing their respective colleges and schools. Our interest is in ensuring that the terms of the collective agreement do not obstruct the authority of academic leaders.

The Employer’s statements have neglected to acknowledge that collegial decision-making is a process that falls to the collegium through the collegial processes in our Collective Agreement, as well as at University Council. In addition, the suggestion here seems to be that there is a distinction between the university’s academic leadership and those people whose roles are defined by the Collective Agreement. However, the Agreement applies both to those who are in-scope and to those who are out-of-scope (for example, Senior Administrators such as Deans, the Provost and Vice-President Academic, the President).

We do not yet have a full picture of how the Employer believes the Collective Agreement could obstruct authority of academic leaders, but the Employer has stated from the outset of negotiations that one of its key interests is to “Respect and define the appropriate boundaries and authority with respect to collegial decision-making and the tri-cameral governance structure of the University.”

We do not share the Employer’s interest in changing Article 3, since we are not convinced that any further definition is called for. The boundaries and authorities of collegial decision making and tri-cameral governance are clearly laid out in the University of Saskatchewan Act and in the Collective Agreement between the USFA and the University, as follows:

table of the roles and powers of the Senate, the Board, University Council, and Faculty Members (University of Saskatchewan Act) – (pdf)

table of collegial governance committees of in-scope and out-of-scope faculty members (Collective Agreement) – (pdf)

In short, the collegial governance processes articulated in our Collective Agreement are the negotiated terms and conditions of employment for faculty members represented by the USFA. They are also the negotiated processes whereby we work together with out-of-scope faculty members to make collegial governance possible.

Since last June we have met with the Employer on 16 separate dates, and have scheduled 10 more between now and June. Talks have proceeded slowly, due to both scheduling difficulties and some lengthy dialogue concerning issues where our interests are far apart. Coming into negotiations with a mandate themed “Equity and Stability,” we encountered an Employer mandate that focuses on increased authority for academic leaders, “accountability” of faculty, and once again a claim of financial strictures (in this round due to budget cuts by the Government of Saskatchewan).

To date, we have agreed on a number of uncontroversial changes to the language of the Collective Agreement, and we are close to agreeing on updated language to Article 7 on Non-discrimination that will expand inclusivity from the current terms “aboriginal” and “gay men or lesbians,” and will reflect changes in law since the article was first composed.

College of Medicine

We have proposed negotiating terms and conditions for new hires of MD Research faculty, including what percentage of time doing academic as opposed to clinical work would constitute full-time employment with the university. The Employer, however, insists that all newly hired MD faculty are independent contractors and refuses to negotiate new hires. This issue will be resolved through grievance, as will our request for information about medical faculty for the purposes of negotiations, which the Employer has declined to provide. We have begun discussions of differential designations for clinical faculty who are not full-time employees of the university (Article 13.1.1 (iii)). A more detailed explanation of USFA’s interests in negotiating these issues concerning the College of Medicine will follow.

Employer items

We have had extensive discussions about processes for discipline (Article 30) and investigating allegations of misconduct (Article 12, Personal Files). The Employer’s proposals so far have been distant from USFA interests but we continue to look for mutual interests. Ultimately, both USFA and the Employer hope to have clarity in our language that will reduce the number of disputes over disciplinary processes. Protection of our membership from improper instructions or disciplinary actions is a primary interest of USFA.

A key interest for the Employer in this round of negotiations has been to address issues of authority and governance at our institution, and the Employer has proposed opening Article 3 (Management Rights). We do not share an interest in changing this article. A more detailed explanation of USFA’s understanding of Tri-cameral and Collegial governance at this institution will follow in a separate e-letter.

Other items tabled by the Employer concern MOA 2, Appointment and Reappointment of Senior Administrators, an increase in available Academic Programming Appointments, and language on negotiating severance.

USFA items

We have tabled proposals for changes to Article 15 regarding the composition of the College Review Committee and the University Review Committee, specifying that the Nominations Committees shall strive to achieve a gender balance based on overall membership of the college or university. So far, the Employer is not interested in agreeing to this proposal.

Article 10.5.6, under “Rights and Privileges of the Association,” specifies that there will be a USFA observer on the Budget Committee of Council. Because there is no longer such a committee, USFA has proposed that certain financial information be shared at JCMA instead. The Employer is not willing to entertain having a USFA observer on present financial committees of Council.

We have tabled a proposal regarding support for spousal employment (both academic and non-academic).

We have yet to discuss proposals on issues related to supporting stability for new faculty, recognition of community and interdisciplinary scholarship, the next steps for childcare on campus, Emeritus rank, basis for the awards of Special Increases, and transparency in reporting.

Financial items

Monetary items (salary, merit, benefits) will be last to be negotiated. The Employer has stated an interest in moving to a new market target for academic salaries at a lower percentile among the U15. The USFA’s goal is to not lose ground, and to maintain a position in the top quartile of the U15. The Employer has also indicated that it will table a proposal on changes to the award of Special Increases.