TAGS
ON CAMPUS
STUDENT LIFE
OFF CAMPUS
EDUCATION

GOVERNMENT
MONEY
COOL
VARSITY BLUES
UTSU
ADMINISTRATION
BIOLOGY
ART
MUSIC
FOOD & DRINK
ELECTIONS
IN THE LAB
FACULTY
TECHNOLOGY
HEALTH
FILM
PROFILE
NUMBERS
INTERVIEW
LITERATURE
PSYCH
BRIEFS
THEATRE
LOVE & SEX
DESIGN
GENDER
ENVIRONMENT
LONG FORM
POP CULTURE
THE VARSITY
SPACE
LAW
PRO SPORTS
SIMCOE HALL
TORONTO
HUMAN RIGHTS
MISSISSAUGA
UTSU DEFEDERATION
FROSH
SCARBOROUGH
PHOTOGRAPHY
INFOGRAPHICS
FAITH
BEST OF 2012
GUIDES
LGBTQ
FASHION
RACE
DRUGS
ALUMNI
EUREKA
EDITORIAL
DANCE
SGRT
RELIGION
JOURNALISM
INTRAMURALS
JOB MARKET
COMMUTE
INVESTIGATIVE
PODCAST
University of Toronto's Student Newspaper Since 1880

Gulf widens between St. Michael’s College, staff instructors

Union takes case to students and media over objections from SMC admin after 37 weeks of unsuccessful negotiations

By Evan Hutchison
Published: 1:36 pm, 12 July 2012
Modified: 8 pm, 25 August 2012
under
UPDATED

Negotiations between the St. Michael’s College administration and CUPE Local 3902 have stalled in their 37th week, with both sides unable to reach a consensus over what union spokeswoman Leslie Jermyn calls “important human rights issues for these academic workers.”

WYATT CLOUGH/THE VARSITY

An open letter from Unit 4 of CUPE 3902 to the Collegium of St. Michael’s College publicly identifies several of the stumbling blocks it claims are impeding negotiations, including allegations that the college has refused to cooperate over protections for witnesses and complainants in sexual harassment and bullying grievances, the right to launch complaints relating to “improper and unfair hiring decisions,” and an agreement “to exercise [management] rights in a manner which is fair, reasonable, equitable and consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.”

Similar provisions are included in all the other agreements CUPE 3902 has negotiated at the University of Toronto. As a federated college, St. Michael’s is technically an independent employer and negotiates its own contracts independent of Simcoe Hall.

The union’s bargaining committee says that until the issues outlined in the letter are addressed, it will be impossible to advance to a discussion of wages and benefits with the administration.

College bursar and CFO Georgina Kossivas declined to comment on the specifics of the ongoing negotiations, citing a “confidentiality understanding” between the St. Michael’s and the union’s representatives — an understanding she claims Unit 4 has disregarded. Kossivas called the decision to publicize the bargaining process “legally imprudent,” and contends that the details divulged in the letter are “selective, taken out of context, and fail to reflect the complete bargaining discussions on these issues.”

Kossivas said the college had been negotiating in good faith, and will continue to do so when the bargaining process resumes later this week. Meanwhile Local 3902 plans to lobby faculty, students, and donors in the coming weeks, in an effort to increase pressure on the college to comply with its demands.

Update: When asked to comment on their decision to go public, representatives of Unit 4 claimed that no understanding concerning confidentiality was reached, saying, “as a democratic union, we would never agree to withholding information about bargaining from the members we represent.”

 

  • CUPE St Michaels

    Thank you for your interest in our
    ongoing bargaining for a first collective agreement.

    The union would like to clearly state that there was no confidentiality agreement as claimed by Georgina Kossivas. She has either made an error in claiming there was or has been misinformed.

    To answer the specific claim about
    confidentiality, as a democratic union, we would never agree to withholding
    information about bargaining from the members we represent. Our main channels
    for communicating with members are email and our website so that when we
    prepare bargaining updates, they are, by necessity, in the public arena. When
    this issue was raised at the table back in October 2011, we pointed out our then
    ongoing Unit 1 negotiations and communications to the Employer’s
    representatives and told them we would be doing the same thing. They responded
    that we were reporting the actual state of bargaining (what was agreed, not
    agreed, proposed and counter-proposed) and we acknowledged that. While they did
    not like this level of transparency, there was no agreement on our part to do
    anything differently for St. Michael’s negotiations.

     

    As to the open letter, we have worked
    patiently with the Employer’s representatives for many months to come to a
    mutually-agreeable contract. This has involved much compromise on both sides
    and has been very slow. As the letter suggests, they have refused to agree to
    language that not only governs our relations with two other employers on campus
    (University of Toronto Governing Council and the Board of Regents at Victoria),
    but is standard in our sector. Our letter is intended to alert the Collegium of
    St. Michael’s that this is a significant sticking point for us and to alert the
    wider community to what we think are important human rights issues for these
    academic workers. We have not broken any agreement in releasing this letter.  

    We
    look forward to continuing to bargain a fair contract for St. Michael’s
    contract academic workers.

     

     

    Leslie Jermyn
    CUPE 3902