President's Update: Sep27, 1999


	OPSEU Local 560
To:	All Members of OPSEU Local 560
From:	OPSEU Local 560 President Ted Montgomery
Date:	September 27, 1999
Subject:	Updates

RAISES

On September 24th, many of you got a raise, moving to a new step on the salary grid. For those at the maximum, this meant a move to Step 19, brand new at $70,202. The raise comes on the 24th because September 23rd 1998 was the date of settlement and one year of "on-the-job experience" has been completed.On September 24th 2000, Step 20 will kick in at $72,158.

For those not at their maximum, career earnings are significantly increased when the cap is raised, since most of us spend the better part of our career at maximum.

It is worthwhile — no, it’s important — to remember what made the salary increase possible and a reality. It was the strike mandate of spring 1998 that provided the raise.

Negotiations, in the late summer and early fall of 1998, were focused on the very real possibility of a strike. I chaired the faculty bargaining team and, make no mistake, without the strong strike mandate that faculty delivered in the spring, it was likely that we would have been on strike. College management assessed the situation and acknowledged that faculty were willing to strike for a fair salary, positioned between high school and university teachers. That salary level was achieved in the settlement. Had there been a weak or borderline strike mandate, management would have most assuredly tested faculty’s resolve.

HEALTH SCIENCES/NURSING

You may know that nursing programs, province-wide, have been under some pressure because of changes being implemented regarding the demand for a university degree. Recently, Seneca Nursing faculty received some preliminary good news regarding the transition. It appears that the Nursing Education Implementation Committee will recommend that collaborative programs be developed without a single model being required. (The collaboration is between universities and colleges) Funding will be available to steer the parties to such collaborative agreements. There’ll be a "strong reference" to the York/Seneca/Georgian model. Nothing is finalized but the signs are positive for a reasonable transition.

SUN LIFE DE-MUTUALIZATION

You may have wondered whether the de-mutualization of Sun Life and the transition to a share-holder enterprise would have an impact on us. Our Collective Agreement provides for life insurance under Articles 19.07, 19.08, & 19.09. Sun Life is the carrier. In short, there is no effect. Only whole life policy holders are affected, as they have some ownership rights in the mutual company. Our policies are term life and have no ownership component. There will be no change to our rights. We are not now and will not become owners of Sun Life.

ATTENDANCE/ABSENTEESIM POLICY The College revised its policy on attendance and absenteeism in August 1999. The policy is seriously flawed, and you should be aware that it may violate your rights if you follow it in the event of an absence. While it is reasonable for the college to require that you contact your supervisor in the event of an absence, planned or unplanned, as far in advance as possible, it is not reasonable that an absence of more than three days requires medical documentation. Even though the policy states that an absence under five days requires only that the documentation "indicate the reason for absence and confirm that the employee is fully capable of returning to full duties," this goes way too far. The arbitration award in the St Michael’s Extended Care Centre case put it this way:

"… it may be appropriate and reasonable for a rule to exist that requires medical certificates in circumstances in which the employer is concerned about the employee’s ability to function in his position. Again, however, these decisions must be made on an individual, rather than an automatic basis."

Only where there are reasonable grounds for suspicion can the employer legitimately demand such medical documentation after so short an absence. Many of us have been too ill to work for three days and more without the need of a physician’s services. Where there is a pattern of many absences over a time, or there are other corroborating grounds to suspect improper use of sick leave, the college has a right to require medical documentation. Otherwise, they do not, particularly for so brief an absence as four or five days. Jurisprudence on the matter of innocent absenteeism is crystal clear — an employer cannot discipline for innocent absenteeism.

In exactly the same way, the revised policy’s requirements for detailed medical documentation in cases of longer absence (including everything over 5 days!) cannot be applied in an automatic across-the-board manner. Such a policy intrudes upon individual rights of privacy. The College must present reasonable grounds for any such intrusion on an individual basis.
If you are confronted with a demand for medical documentation, no matter what the circumstances, please contact your union representatives right away.

RETIREMENTS In the last few months, Seneca has lost a number of its long-term stalwarts, many of whom opted for early retirement. Among this latest group of retirees were some long-time Local 560 supporters and activists. I am not going to identify anyone in particular, but do want to wish them all well in their future endeavors and thank them for their participation in and contribution to the activities of OPSEU Local 560. It is the members who have made the Local strong over the years. That will continue to be so.

Ted Montgomery, President OPSEU Local 560

HOME