Bargaining Committee & Bulletins
CUPE Local 3550 Bargaining Committee Membership
Mandy Lamoureux (Co-Chair)
Lorraine Wheatley
Mabel Ong
Shelly Lavallee (Chief Steward)
Michelle Bilodeau
Wafa Soaadi
Carlos Capurro (CUPE National Representative; Co-Chair)
Marianne Andresen
Bargaining Bulletins & Negotiation Updates
Negotiations Update – March 7, 2023
February 23, 2023
The Division opened the day with a proposal around the Job Evaluation (reclassification) appeal procedure, and a response to the Duty to Accommodate language presented by the Local on February 16, 2023.
The scope regarding what criteria could be included in an appeal process and who can make the final decision on an appeal, has been a challenge to get agreement on. The Division disagrees with the Local’s proposed language around the scope of the Appeal Process and feel that understanding by both parties is key in the discussions. The Local continues to ask that any decision that is disagreed with should be allowed to go to an arbitrator to decide, the Division continues to argue that the final decision on appeals will be made by the Job Evaluation Appeals Committee. The Local’s stance is that in a unionized workplace, a worker’s rights to arbitration on labour disputes is an inherent right that belongs to workers. This right should not be denied. An arbitrator has final decision making and not the Division with regards to labour disputes. The Local also points out that this would only occur if a classification appeal is not resolved at the appeal stages.
With regards to the Duty to Accommodate, the Division shared that it is developing procedures and administrative processes supporting employees. The Local would be consulted in the process along with other stakeholders and locals, which could be completed in the fall. The Division rejected putting language around the Duty to Accommodate into the Collective Agreement. The Local responded with the idea of an interim Letter of Understanding be used until it is replaced by the Division’s procedure. The Division stated they will form a reply.
The Division gave the Local, their responses from the previous negotiation proposals. They continue to reject the name change for the Division, returning employees back into the supply pool, and the definition of itinerant employee. They agreed to continue discussion on definition of “Temporary-biweekly employee”, Support Supply employees and employees on the recall period. They agreed to add: National Day of Truth and Reconciliation under Holidays.
The Division raised concerns about the Local’s communication with members through the Negotiations update. They have reviewed the last 2 updates and ask if it is the Local’s intention to provide this level of detail. The Local responded that it was our responsibility to accurately reflect negotiations, and that the updates are not meant for the Division, but privy to the membership. The Local understands that the Division must also report to its Stakeholders and that we do not get to see their reports.
February 24, 2023
The Local started the morning with a set of proposals on the Legal name change of the School Division, status of Temporary bi-weekly employees and supply employees, the recall period, proposals under Article 3 Definitions, and adding an additional article under Holidays.
The Local discussed the Education Act that make reference to the Legal name change of the School Division. The Division will review it and will provide a response. The Local asked for more discussion on Temporary bi-weekly and supply employees; commitment to work out an agreement during negotiations and not under a Letter of Understanding. The Division agreed to extending the recall period from 12 months to 24 months from the Local’s proposal package. The Local presented new language under the Holidays article, the Division will review and reply.
The Division also had responses from the previous day. They had declined the Local’s proposal on the interim Letter of Understanding for the Duty to Accommodate section. The Local pointed out several factors: that regulations take time to create and an interim Letter is to help out while the procedures are being developed; the language for Duty to Accommodate is important to help their employees; that the Local has no information to go on except that formal written procedures will be worked on, and is confident that the formal written procedures will be positively received; the Education Act states that the School Division is to provide a safe working environment for staff. For these reasons it would be helpful to support staff employees.
The Local shared several of our members’ stories with the Division. They were shared in a form that would not allow anyone to be identified as the writer. Sharing the stories was done for the consideration of trustees and the Division’s committee to fully understand that the impacts of unfair reclassifications, more workload, illness, and disrespect are real. The committee feels that the value of presenting our proposals with the lived experience of this membership is crucial, and we ask that members please continue to share their stories with the negotiations committee, we need the lived experience on the impact of inflation on wages, illness and accommodations, reclassifications, and respect. This is key to relate your experiences to the Division.
The Division viewed their Job Evaluation language, as a process that is sufficient and their response remains that it is available as presented. The Local restated that an appeals process is important, and employees need to have their labour rights restored. This is similar to not allowing a citizen access to the courts to be heard, these are barriers to equity and rights of unionized employees. This goes against the Anti-Racism Policy and principles that the Division wants to incorporate into making them an anti-racist employer, and an employer of choice.
The Local started the afternoon with the Division to sign off an agreement sheet for Holidays and Recall period. The Local proposed several items to the Division for the next meeting. These include new items on Orientation for new staff, definitions on probation period, definition of “date of hire”, working file and the word “terminated”, update of using the word “Connect” instead of “Staff Zone”, staff commencement date for new school year, and bumping process language.
The Division asked for clarification of how the Local sees the Anti-Racism Policy and its connection to support discussions. The Local presented the key points in the message from the Superintendent and the policy itself as it relates to reducing barriers, and equity for students as well as changes in Human Resources. The principles of Anti-Racism are not in line with imposing barriers and withholding the labour rights of unionized employees. They are also not in line with the government mandate that School Boards provide a safe working environment and take care of their staff.
The Local will respond to the Division’s presentation on job reclassifications appeal process and the Division will respond to the Local’s proposals at the next meeting. The Local has also proposed dates for the next negotiations meeting for the Division to consider.
IN SOLIDARITY,
CUPE 3550 Negotiations Committee
Negotiations Update – February 9th and 16th, 2023
The local opened with a re-introduction of proposals that were rejected by the Division at the end of the day on February 9, 2023.
We asked for clarification of the Legal name of the School Division and requested further clarification. The Division is preferring not to use what the Ministerial Order directed.
We re-introduced language around reducing the days for supply staff to be recognized as Temporary Bi-weekly employees from 25 to 10 cumulative working days. The Local argued the importance of this language for the retention of supply staff members by qualifying sooner for benefits, providing an incentive for supply staff. The Division is looking at ways to recruit and retain staff, and has met with the Local several times to address this issue. The Local also argued that this language moves us closer to attaining equity for our membership with other staff groups.
The Division responded that it is too much work and costly to administer; however, other staff groups within the Division already have them. The Division will consider it as a cost item for this membership. This means that we can choose to bring this up a second time under our monetary proposals for consideration. The Local argues that the membership should not have to pay the Division to be treated equally.
We presented the issues that our members are having around the Duty to Accommodate. We shared live examples where there are challenges in achieving an accommodation. They immediately discredited the issues that our members have, and our concerns with how our members are treated and made to feel through the accommodation process. They felt our presentation was one-sided and without taking it away to discuss with their committee, the Division took offence. The Local reassured that the intention was not to be offensive to the Division, but to accept the lived experiences of our members. Members who need support are not being treated appropriately under The Duty to Accommodate process which is intended to ensure that all staff succeed by meeting their needs. The Local is attempting to take steps with the Division to address the issues as opposed to rejecting the proposal outright.
The Local again proposed increasing the recall period. The Division believes that staff move on and sever ties with the Division within twelve months. In reality, members on recall want to continue working for the Division. They choose to continue taking short-term and long-term assignments hoping for a recall; many have not severed their ties. This also negatively impacts the Division with regards to retention as members that lose their permanent status are passed over in job competitions and can only apply as supply staff. Their valuable experience in a permanent position is essentially lost.
The Local reintroduced language around reversion to supply status for members that apply on permanent positions and are not successful. Currently, despite working successfully in supply for many years, if they are not successful in probation they are terminated. We are asking for reinstatement to supply.
The Local continues to propose that there be a definition for permanent employees working in supply. They are currently referred to as “itinerant supply” in discussions with the Local. We simply want clear language and they rejected the proposal.
In the last two bargaining days, the Local has proposed articles on reclassification, TBW (equity/recruitment/retention), Duty to Accommodate, recall period improvements, reversion to supply status, and clear language around itinerant supply. All have been rejected by the Division.
We met at the end of the day to respond to some questions that the Division had around the reclassification appeal language, and the interpretation of our responses to it. They agreed to bring us a written response at our next meeting.
IN SOLIDARITY,
CUPE 3550 Negotiations Committee
Bargaining Update – December 15, 2022
The Bargaining Committee opened the meeting by presenting proposals around the definition and name changes for the Division. The committee also re-introduced contracting out language, specifically around new language that is in line with language that the custodian’s local already has around the staffing of new sites with our members.
We also proposed language on orientation and access to newly hired members to provide them with important information. The request is for face-to-face communication and agreement is needed on the platform that works with the Division’s processes.
We also presented comprehensive language under “Job Classification” (Job Evaluation/Job audits)(Article 3 s.) that addresses the Division’s need to manage the job duties and position classifications, and also the membership’s need to address concerns, appeals and keep their labour rights when it comes to job re-classifications that are unfair. The language encompasses the different management needs such as New Classifications, Changes to Existing Classifications, Change in Job Content, and Classification adjustments. It also ensured that members could maintain their labour rights which are taken away under our current existing language. This language would ensure that job audits and reclassifications can be a fair process for everyone.
The Division responded in the afternoon rejecting our contracting out proposals despite other locals having it, citing that they didn’t feel our membership would be troubled if this language wasn’t changed.
With respect to the “Job Classification” language proposal, the Division criticized how the language was reached (taken from Collective Agreement Language that exists), and how it didn’t mesh with language or processes that the Division uses. They rejected the language presented in its entirety and proposed language that speaks more to better notification to the union.
In our discussions, the division made it clear that their intention was to work collaboratively short of acknowledging the members’ grievance rights.
The Local 3550 bargaining committee argued extremely hard about the problems and unfairness of not allowing our members the right to challenge unfair job audits that result in lower classifications where there have been no changes in duties to reflect a lower pay grade. We argued that the language that exists today was there because of an understanding of trust that the union would be involved in joint maintenance of the job evaluation system and ensure that it was used fairly. That did not happen, and it has turned into a “gotcha” against the membership. We argued this under the labour rights that exist for workers, the removal of barriers under the Racism Policy, and the stress and suffering this is causing our members. We pointed out the recent re-classification of support staff at Johnny Bright School.
The committee has provided many different options to resolve this impasse, including striking out language in clause 3 s., using language that already existed in the appeal process when the job evaluation process was first implemented, and providing good language that exists in other Locals where members’ rights are acknowledged. All have been rejected by the Division’s committee, without any interest in collaborating or providing acceptable responses.
We were quite disappointed and have offered the ability of non-binding arbitration on this item as we feel that we have exhausted all avenues with the Division. At the same time, we are hearing of a whole school’s Educational Assistants recently being re-classified to lower pay grades. This was brought up in discussions as well adding to the unfair treatment of our membership, especially during this difficult economic period we are all facing. We have made it clear to the Division, that a resolve on this matter is key for the membership on any final agreements. We hope that non-binding arbitration is acceptable to the Division when we meet with them next in February of 2023.
We are also asking for member support and engagement in future meetings!
In Solidarity,
Jorge Illanes
Bargaining Update – November 3, 2022
CUPE 3550 Bargaining Committee opened the meeting and presented items for discussion and proposals that required more deliberation.
-
Impact of Public Sector Employer’s Act: Requesting clarity and transparency of what was required by government, and if there was an application of exemption by the Division to offset what this Act imposes on our Collective Bargaining Process under the Labour Code definitions.
The Division responded with assuring us that they had the ability to make the agreements and have reporting requirements to the government under the Act. The Division was not intending to file for an exemption and will bargain under this Act.
-
Contracting Out: Local 3550 requested language that provided job security and that reflected the past practice and Letter of Understanding that has remained consistently in the Collective Agreement. Job Security was key to membership responses and agreeing on no contracting out of our jobs encompasses the values of the Division. The Division cited fears of the unknown and will not agree to the language proposed. We hope that the discussion around this can be revisited.
-
The Local’s proposals and concerns around the language in Article 3 s. was further discussed. We have requested language from the Division; however, they see value in consistent reporting of job audit and classification changes but will not consider anything else. The bargaining committee continues to argue how this language was agreed to be in the Collective Agreement in good faith in that the Division would include the Union in the maintenance of the Job Evaluation Process, including classifications of hybridized positions, and changes to classifications that were previously agreed to that have now changed. Joint Maintenance would allow us to protect our members’ labour rights. The language in its current form gives the Division a huge advantage in that they can reclassify positions at will, with no challenge or appeal process by employees that are affected negatively. The Local continues to argue that this has caused suffering for members, and that it needs to change, because it is completely unfair to take away the labour rights of our members, which is what is happening. It also goes against the Division’s cornerstone values, and the values expressed in the Anti-Racism and Equity Action Plan. These discussions have been extremely difficult, however, the Local will bring language to the table at the next bargaining opportunity.
-
Discussions around orientation of new staff, and the union’s ability to meet with newly hired members during work time. The Division does agree to the value of this and is amenable to language that can work for everyone. We hope to move forward at our next meeting.
-
Articles that were not opened were agreed to be “status quo” and were signed off as agreed to not be opened.
As you can see discussions have been difficult, especially around Article 3 s. The bargaining committee strongly feels that this article is extremely unfair and we are determined to argue for badly needed changes to this article. Our next bargaining date will be on December 15, 2022 and we look forward to meeting with the Division.
Also, we’re very happy to see that CUPE in Ontario (representing Ontario’s education support staff workers) managed to stand up for their bargaining Charter Rights and was able to force the PC Government of Doug Ford to repeal their legislated “notwithstanding clause” abuse of bargaining rights. Governments should not interfere in Collective Bargaining rights of workers, something which is clearly happening in Alberta as well. While the successful fight to repeal Bill 28 allows them to return to the bargaining table, they continue to be in the same position as many Education Support Staff bargaining teams in Alberta, fighting to keep our members out of poverty and to better the working conditions that Education Support Staff have suffered for years.
We hope to speak to you about this at our November 17 Virtual Communicator’s meeting at 6:30 PM via Zoom. Please watch for the reminder.
In Solidarity,
CUPE Local 3550 Bargaining Committee
Negotiating strong contracts for our members is what we do best. The solidarity of our members is the heart of our bargaining power, and makes gains possible. Watch CUPE members talk about bargaining, the challenges facing workers, and how we can stand together to reach out to our members and improve conditions for all workers in Canada.
GET IN TOUCH WITH US
Address and Contact Information
CUPE Local 3550
14207 115 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5M 3B6
Phone
(780) 455 1435
Fax
(780) 452 1462
Email
cupe3550@telus.net