OPSEU Local 560

In this issue....
OPS Strike
Critical Conditions
Did I Miss Anything?
Probationary Prof Reinstated
Goodbye Party at Woodbine: Cartoon
Threats to Employees
The Back Page... LOCAL 560 ELECTIONS

OPS Strike: Fighting for Public Services
TED MONTGOMERY, PRESIDENT, LOCAL 560

You may have seen the newspaper ads or heard the radio commercials of the Provincial Government touting its offer to striking OPSEU members.  The Government has its offer on the table and has walked away from bargaining.  That’s why its ads have stressed that other public sector unions have accepted similar offers.  The fact of the matter is that this offer has already been voted on and rejected.  It is the same offer that generated an 88% strike vote from the membership.  This government knows full well that this particular offer cannot form the basis of any settlement.  Their unwillingness to go back to the table and work toward creative solutions speaks volumes about their real intent.
I am not going to examine the details of the positions each side has on the table.  But here is an example of where the government offer sits.  You might contrast it with our settlement of last year.

Benefits? (And this is a quote form the offer) “The Employer proposes to reconfigure the benefit program by improving certain benefits while implementing cost control limits… If this is accepted in principle, the details will be worked out with the union.”  Plain and simple, this means no benefit improvements unless other benefits are reduced by the same amount.
“Pay for performance?” Offered is 0.5% added to total payroll, available only to persons already at the top of the scale, to be doled out annually at the discretion of managers, and not subject to any grievance or formal complaint.  Contrast this with the steps and automatic bonuses added to our grid over the last three rounds of bargaining.

Pensions?  (By legislation, our College pension issues are not negotiable. Theirs are.)  The Government proposes to end the early retirement provision – Factor 80 – except for those employees who are “surplused.”  The Ontario Public Service has a joint pension trust.  The government proposes to block OPSEU from using even its own share of that joint trust surplus to fund improvements.
Unclassified workers?  This is probably the biggest stumbling block, although the government would have you believe this strike is just about  money.  The Public Service is overflowing with contract workers.  Over thirty per cent of the work force – close to 14,000 people – fall into this “unclassified” category.  They get no benefits, and have no job security.  They can be kept for two years at 40 hours per week in this position.  The government’s position on this critical issue?  Create “term classified” positions that would open up some benefits and even some pension rights to those hired, but would still block job security and any right of seniority.

Since their election, this Government has engaged in a program of privatization of public works and dismantling of public services.  We all know about Walkerton.  But even without that tragedy, the record would not be significantly different.  The long-term negative effects of the destruction of Ontario Hydro, and widespread de-regulation, will be felt in this province for decades.  Nope. This strike is not so much about money as it is about the value of public services to the people of Ontario.

One ad says “up to 10%.”  Sounds like those sales that are “up to 60 & off.”  We all know what that really means.

Maybe the strike will be over by the time you read this. I hope so.  Either way, even though some of us might be inconvenienced by a picket line somewhere, or a reduction of service that we had been expecting, we all need to thank and respect those workers who have put themselves at a disadvantage and into some hardship not so much in their own personal interests as in the interests of public sector workers across the province. Like the teachers who sacrificed their pay to protest the damage being wrought upon their schools, the Ontario Public Service workers now on strike deserve our gratitude and support.

An arbitration decision in a grievance at Loyalist College reinstated a probationary professor who had been released for failing to meet certain professional development conditions she had agreed to at the time of her hire.

The grievor was hired, effective August 23, 1999,  as a full-time Early Childhood Education (ECE) professor, with a probationary period of one year. In June, 2000, she was released because she had not pursued graduate studies in ECE, as agreed upon in her letter of hire.
The professor had been a sessional ECE teacher on and off for eight years prior to assuming her full-time  position. While on probation, she had received only favourable evaluations.

While Article 27.02 C of the Collective Agreement permits the dismissal of a professor during the probationary period, it also indicates that the professor may request a written explanation of the decision. In this case, the union argued that the College’s reason for firing was not legally valid since the College had unilaterally stipulated a condition of employment (graduate studies in ECE), whereas only the union can negotiate conditions of employment. The union, it argued, had not been involved in the hiring of the professor.

The arbitration panel determined that there was no need for the professor to satisfy the condition of hire during any particular period of time. Since her failure to enroll in such a program was the only reason for her release, they ruled the release improper and ordered the grievor reinstated to her full-time position with full compensation for losses incurred.

THREATS TO EMPLOYEES
Larry Olivo, Vice President, & Patricia Clark, Secretary, OPSEU Local 560

With 15,000 day students at the College, it should surprise no one that among these will be some troubled individuals who may physically threaten college employees. So, what should you do if you feel your safety is threatened? Does the college have a clear policy and practices for responding to workplace threats? These are the questions faculty in the School of Legal and Public Administration raised after an emotionally disturbed student threatened some faculty.

Management’s  Muddled Response
In this case, Seneca College officials responded, but not as quickly as they might have, and originally did not inform all the faculty who were potentially affected that the threats had been made. Indeed, the whole response seemed so muddled that faculty asked for a meeting with college managers to voice their concerns and get some clarification about the steps the College was taking to protect employee safety.
At the meeting, College’s representatives from Counselling, Student Rights and Responsibilities, and the Centre for Equity and Human Rights provided no clear explanation of the College’s Personal Safety/Security Threats Policy. (Apparently, no College reps from Security or Health and Safety were invited.) Those present gave advice, mostly aimed at providing support for the troubled student — certainly welcome advice, but not of much help in regard to faculty safety concerns. Unfortunately, no one provided any clear advice on what steps we should take when we feel our safety is threatened.

What constitutes a safety/security threat?
Seneca’s Personal Safety/Security Threats Policy defines a safety/security threat as a “situation which may be in the form of an assault, sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, threat of assault, uttering threats of death/damage, harassment (criminal) of an individual, or any other act that constitutes a violent act as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada and/or any action that would constitute workplace violence as determined by the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).”

What should I do when I perceive a safety/security threat?
If you believe the threat of harm is real, immediately remove yourself from the source of danger. If appropriate, you may also wish to warn other people to leave the area. Then, seek assistance immediately from either the Police (at “911”), the campus Security (at “88” on College telephones associated with the 491-5050 number), or your campus safety designate. In all cases, be sure to notify the Manager of Security (via Ext. 2565, 2553, or 2497) as soon as reasonably possible after the occurrence.

What happens next?
The Manager of Security, in consultation with you (the threatened individual)  and the Campus Safety Designate, will determine the nature of the threat and the appropriate response, depending on whether the threat is specific to a person, an area, or a campus. For instance, a security alert or a trespass notice may be issued.

The College is responsible for providing you, to the best of its ability, a safe and secure work environment. You may need counselling, video surveillance, or a safety escort service — all these are possible.

What if I still don’t feel safe?
Having reported a threatening situation, can a professor refuse to return to the workplace? The answer is a qualified “yes.” A worker can refuse unsafe work under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Here's what is involved.

Section 43 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act grants workers the right to refuse work where they have a reasonable basis to believe that the work they are requested to perform or the physical condition of the workplace will endanger their health and safety or that of other workers. (The safety of our students, while important,  is not covered by the act.)

The claim has to be reasonable and honest,  on the basis of the information the worker has — even though this may ultimately prove incorrect.

What’s the procedure for a work refusal?

1. Contact your supervisor immediately, indicating why you are engaging in a work refusal.

2. The supervisor, along with you and a certified worker representative on the Health and Safety Committee (such as Malcolm Archer, Local 560’s Health and Safety officer), or another worker (preferably a union steward) with appropriate knowledge and experience who has been chosen by the you or the union, must investigate the situation immediately.

3. If the situation is resolved, you return to work.

4. If the situation is not resolved and you continue to refuse the work based on a reasonable belief that the work is unsafe, then you or another involved party should contact the Ministry of Labour who will send out an inspector.

5. The inspector decides if it is safe for you to return to work, and must issue a written report. In cases like these, inspectors have often indicated that a threat must involve the use of an object — a gun, knife, garrotte, etc., although college Health and Safety officials may not take such a literal view of the act or the regulations.

6. During a work refusal, you may be given reasonable alternative work, so long as it is not a punishment for refusing work under the OHSA.

7. If no other work is available, you shall remain in a safe place during the investigation, and must continue to be paid.

8. While awaiting the inspector’s report, the supervisor may ask another employee to do the work you have refused. However, the request must be made in the presence of either the worker rep on the health and safety committee or another worker rep; and the replacement worker must be informed that the work was refused by another worker and be given the reasons for that refusal. This worker may also refuse the work.

9. The act prohibits reprisals by the employer if you exercise your work refusal rights under the OHSA, provided your refusal is based on a reasonable and honest belief, even if it turns out you are in error.
 

Over the past five years, there has been a steady rise in our workload and class sizes and a corresponding decline in the quality of education we can offer. In fact, those who see the approaching ‘double cohort’ as a temporary blip are mistaken. The Canadian Human Resources Development Corporation (CHRDC) study commissioned to examine Ontario college staffing needs reveals a continuing and steady growth of student numbers and a potential staffing crisis.

Our politicians seem to have forgotten that investing in education produces life-long social and economic rewards. Likewise, for too long, our college presidents have been jumping to the government’s challenge to do more with less. It’s time they all said, “No, we can’t do this. We won’t compromise the future of our youth and our society.”
SuperBuild funding, while needed for the infrastructure, does nothing to ensure that the number and quality of teaching, counselling, and library staff will be there for future students. The government has not guaranteed the money that will be absolutely necessary to recruit, hire, and retain good faculty.

If current conditions are any indication, we are in for a bumpy ride. Class sizes have been increasing across the college system over the past few years, as indicated by the Individual College Analysis for Seneca prepared by the Project Research Team at Georgian College as a companion piece to the Human Resource Requirements Report for Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. Over the years 1995 to 2000, the ratio of students to full-time faculty has risen  from  18.95:1 to 24.97:1 in the Ontario college system, and from 23.76:1 to 27.11:1 at Seneca College.

At Seneca, the increase in class sizes in this period can be attributed to a decrease in faculty numbers by 16% and an increase in our student numbers by 5.44%. (Ontario’s colleges, on the average, saw a decrease in faculty of 22% and an increase in students of 4%.)
Although numerous Local 560 grievances regarding the abuse of sessional and part-time faculty have resulted in the creation of more full-time positions, these hirings haven’t been sufficient to maintain even the status quo.
Interestingly, during these years, Seneca College cut its administration by only 0.7%, while the overall college system reduced its administrative component by 18%. At Seneca, where there had been one administrator per five faculty in 1995, by 2000, there was one administrator per four faculty. In real numbers, Seneca had 135 administrators and 667 faculty in 1995, while in 2000, 134 administrators remained, but only 560 faculty.

The CHRDC-funded analysis suggests that Seneca will have to hire well over 400 full-time faculty in the next four years to accommodate increased student enrollment and to compensate for retirements during this period. Yet, have we seen evidence of planning for this scenario?
In the coming semesters, faculty everywhere will no doubt be called upon to do more and more work. It is important that we ensure respect for the limits imposed by our collective agreements. These protect the integrity of our educational system. We also need to work with our union counterparts at Ontario post-secondary institutions to publicize the plight of our education system and work to elect a government that is truly prepared to invest in education.