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. The union’s bargaining committee members received responses to several questions asked about the university’s proposals. Discussions on both parties’ monetary proposals will take place at the next meeting, scheduled for March 30.
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.
The union also submitted a document that includes its monetary demands and responded to the administration’s questions. The university committed to presenting its monetary proposal on March 18.
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.
The parties also discussed forming a committee on pay equity. This committee, which will hold separate meetings, will focus on the effects of the application of pay equity in managing the collective agreement.
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 to $7,600 and to guarantee bringing it to a minimum of $8,000 on January 1st, 2018.
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.