Human Resources news
The parties met for two half days in presence of the conciliator recently appointed by the Ministry of Labour. During the first meeting, the parties detailed the progress made during the eleven days of negotiation since August 2014.
Following the March 13meeting, at which time the university presented three key documents – code of conduct (values), roles and responsibilities, article on training and development – during the March 20 meeting, the union indicated its position on these documents.
At the March 11 meeting with SEU trades, as agreed, the union presented a proposal concerning ways to facilitate a work-life balance approach at work. This proposal led to several exchanges after which the parties finally reached an agreement. A written proposal will be submitted to the union at the next meeting, set for March 25.
Following the union’s presentation of its monetary demands on March 9, the university presented its monetary proposals and explained the rationale motivating its offers. The university also explained what comparators were used to benchmark its competitive situation. The parties reviewed in detail the university’s offers.
At the March 9 meeting with teaching assistants, the union presented a document summarizing the issue of criteria linked with priority hiring. It also identified its preferred forum to discuss this issue. Discussions concerning this document will take place at the labour relations committee instead of during negotiations.
On February 24 and 25, the parties engaged in two intensive days of negotiations. They discussed monetary items and will continue discussing this topic at upcoming meetings. The parties turned their attention to discussing still unresolved non-monetary items such as sick days and change in pay frequency.
For the seventh consecutive year, McGill has been named one of Montreal’s Top Employers, as selected by the editors of Canada’s Top 100 Employers.
On February 3rd and 4th, at the union’s request, negotiations were held in the presence of a government appointed arbitrator. At these last two bargaining sessions, the parties discussed monetary matters. At the February 4th meeting, the union rejected the University’s proposal to increase on January 1st of this year the value of a “standard” contract (39 contract hours) from $7,200
At the February 4 session with SEU (facilities), the parties started discussing how to approach negotiating wages. The university accepted to present a detailed proposal on what the approach would resemble at the next meeting, set for February 10.
At the February 3 session with SEU trades, the parties pursued their discussion of temporary alternative work arrangements (TAWA), more particularly as it relates to work-life balance. The union agreed to present a written counter-proposal on this matter at the next meeting, set for March 11.
At the February 2 session with AGSEM TAs, the university proposed an amendment to the clause on discrimination and harassment, in response to the union’s concerns about having information on all possible recourses at their disposal in such circumstances. The parties were unable to reach an agreement.
At the January 23 session with AMUSE floor fellows, the parties discussed the inclusion in the collective agreement of descriptions of roles and responsibilities and values. More specifically, the union wants the focus to be on harm reduction and anti-oppression as key issues they must deal with in their work.
The parties returned to the bargaining table on January 12. The university gave the union the French version of the agreed to article on selection and appointment; it will be reviewed by the union and should be ratified at the next meeting. The parties reviewed the list of resolved items and discussed some of the pending items.
The university met with MCLIU course lecturers and instructors on Dec. 17 and is pleased to report that the parties have reached an agreement in principle on the core issues discussed during the last three bargaining sessions.
The parties met on December 17 to discuss whether a temporary alternative work arrangement (TAWA) could be considered as an adequate vehicle to address the union’s proposal to reduce work hours prior to retirement and to address work-life issues with regard to their work schedule.