Members of the University of Manitoba Faculty Association (UMFA) have voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike vote if there is an impasse in negotiations 14 days after the resumption of collective bargaining.
This vote -- taken at a special meeting on Sept. 24 -- reflected the frustration of the membership that little headway had been made after nearly seven months of contract negotiations with a new administration.
Bargaining over a new contract began in February 1998, with the contract expiring on Mar. 31. UMFA brought to the table a number of bargaining priorities, including improvements to salaries and benefits; a retirement incentive plan tied to a renewal strategy; better protection of intellectual property rights; and new articles on performance indicators (PIs), evaluation of members, teaching and technology, and release time for association officers.
The new article on PIs was a major initiative of the association. As attempts to measure quantitatively an organization's effectiveness, performance indicators are highly variable in their validity, usefulness, and fairness.
The Manitoba government's Council on Post-Secondary Education has discussed using PIs. UMFA's proposed article on PIs provides that they cannot be used to circumvent members' rights under the discontinuance article of our contract, and establishes grievance rights.
The administration proposed a three-year contract with fewer protections of intellectual property, a wage freeze, fewer standardized salary increases, more discretionary salary increases, a total of eight days without pay, and one fundamental change to the terms and conditions of employment of UMFA members -- a compulsory retirement provision.
The administration proposed that compulsory retirement would begin at age 69 and drop to age 65 over the life of the contract.
Although the human rights code of Manitoba prohibits compulsory retirement, in 1996 the provincial government (at the request of the previous University of Manitoba administration) pas-sed legislation enabling the negotiation of a retirement age for academic staff at the university. This legislation made the academic staff at the University of Manitoba the only employees in the province who could be subject to compulsory retirement, if we negotiated it.
On the advice of legal counsel, the association argued it could not bargain compulsory retirement for current members because to do so would violate the vested rights of those who had made personal and professional decisions on the assumption they could choose their retirement age.
If members' vested rights could be interfered with, there would have to be compelling reasons for doing so. Even so, if the association violated members' rights, it could be sued for lost wages by members forced to retire and could face damages in the millions of dollars.
The association expressed an additional concern -- that compulsory retirement would be particularly disadvantageous to female members, whose careers typically begin later than their male colleagues.
The initial response of the membership to the administration's opening financial offer was one of indignation. Opinions about compulsory retirement were mixed. Many members were unconditionally opposed to it. Others said that they might consider the idea if those who were forced to retire would be replaced.
During the summer, the association's team modified many of our proposals in response to administration concerns. Ultimately, however, we were told that none of the new articles we had proposed ever would be acceptable. After a hiatus of several weeks, bargaining resumed in the presence of a conciliator.
At the end of August the administration announced they had filed an unfair labour practice charge against the association (something they had been threatening to do since March).
The administration claimed the association's position on compulsory retirement was the obstacle to getting a new contract. The association responded to the charge, and the Labour Board will begin hearing the case on Oct. 16.
On Sept. 4, the administration tabled a new proposal rejecting almost all of the new articles UMFA had proposed. There were only two major changes. First, they improved their financial offer, abolishing days without pay, reinstating standardized increases, and offering scale increases of zero, one, and two per cent over three years.
Second, they pegged compulsory retirement to the age (currently 69) at which federal law requires individuals to start receiving pension monies. The administration told the media they had addressed all of UMFA's concerns and there should be a quick settlement of the contract.
On Sept. 10 the association's Board of Representatives declared the administration's latest offer was unacceptable because it did not address our bargaining priorities. On Sept. 22, the association's board expressed its continued opposition to compulsory retirement.
On Sept. 24, a special general meeting of the membership passed five motions by very wide margins:
1) the administration's latest proposal was unacceptable;
2) the association's bargaining priorities were reaffirmed;
3) approval was given to offering the administration a loan of up to $1 million from our strike fund to cover the start-up costs of a retirement incentive plan;
4) compulsory retirement was rejected because it would deprive members of a human right enjoyed by all citizens of Manitoba; and
5) a strike vote was authorized if there was an impasse 14 days after the resumption of bargaining.
Bargaining resumed on Sept. 29, with the association handing over a new comprehensive proposal for a three-year contract. The next bargaining session is scheduled for Oct. 7, at which time a res-ponse from the administration is expected. The countdown has begun. It remains to be seen if the administration will take seriously the memberships' strong show of support for the association's positions and move quickly to a negotiated settlement.
Jay Goldstein is President of the University of Manitoba Faculty Association.