<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<article id="post-7038" class="post-7038 post type-post
status-publish format-standard hentry category-uncategorized">
<header class="entry-header">
<h1 class="entry-title">Response to York University: The ‘Path
Forward’ is Bargaining</h1>
<div class="entry-meta"> <span class="sep">Posted on </span><a
href="https://3903.cupe.ca/2018/03/15/response-to-york-university-the-way-forward-is-bargaining/"
title="6:02 pm" rel="bookmark"><time class="entry-date"
datetime="2018-03-15T18:02:27+00:00">March 15, 2018</time></a><span
class="by-author"> <span class="sep"> by </span> <span
class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n"
href="https://3903.cupe.ca/author/cupe-3903-communications-officer/"
title="View all posts by CUPE 3903 Communications
Officer" rel="author">CUPE 3903 Communications Officer</a></span></span>
</div>
</header>
<div class="entry-content">
<p>The following letter was sent to York University President
Rhonda Lenton in response to the communication ‘The way
forward’ which was sent to the York community on March 13.
This letter clarifies the misinformation that has been spread
by the administration, and reiterates the same request we have
extended since York’s offer was rejected: come back to the
bargaining table.</p>
<p><span id="more-7038"></span></p>
<hr>
<p>Dear President Lenton:</p>
<p>I write today on behalf of the CUPE 3903 Bargaining Team in
response to your March 13, 2018 communication to the York
community.</p>
<p>While we share York University’s belief that our students
should not continue to be impacted by our current dispute, we
fundamentally differ on ‘the way forward.’ It is worth noting
that the majority of our members are also students. We are
essential members of the York University community.</p>
<p>The distance between the parties is not as unbridgeable as
York has led the public to believe. York’s public statements
with respect to the union’s ‘initial demands’ are neither
helpful nor an accurate reflection of the current differences
between the parties. We spent six months presenting,
discussing, and agreeing on proposals. It was CUPE 3903’s
perception that meaningful discussions were occurring towards
mutual understanding on significant issues.</p>
<p>We believe that the fastest, most effective, and clearest
path to a resolution requires both sides to sit down and make
their best effort to reach a negotiated settlement. We
reiterate our request, which we have extended since March 2 –
come back to the table.</p>
<p>On February 28, CUPE 3903 provided – at York’s request – a
series of modifications to our existing package of proposals.
Following our membership’s rejection of your last offer, we
provided – again, at York’s request – a counteroffer on March
5. At the time, York indicated a movement of this nature was
necessary for bargaining to resume. Despite the fact that the
union provided a meaningful counterproposal, York continues to
refuse to return to the bargaining table, calling into
question York’s commitment to resolve this dispute.</p>
<h1>York’s response to CUPE 3903’s March 5 proposals:</h1>
<p>In the portions of your correspondence under the heading,
‘Issues arising from CUPE 3903’s March 5 proposals,’ a number
of issues are raised.</p>
<p><strong>Proposal 12</strong> – The union accepted York’s
offer of $100,000 for the post-retirement benefits fund. What
is still in dispute is the maximum available funds per year
for retired Unit 2 members. This is a non-monetary issue as
the overall cost to York has not been increased.</p>
<p>We never had agreement on this proposal; therefore, it is
erroneous to claim that it was reintroduced.</p>
<p><strong>Proposal 35</strong> – CUPE 3903 reiterates, without
prejudice, our long-standing position of a minimum $15,000
guarantee for Unit 3 members. The amount referenced by York is
the result of a clear formatting error and does not supersede
the well-established and consistent position we have taken.</p>
<p><strong>Proposal 65</strong> – The changes in proposal 65
regarding incentive funding for conversions reflect the
significant reduction in the demand for automatic conversions
to a fixed number or percentage of YUFA hires.</p>
<h1>Legality of the March 5, 2018 union proposals</h1>
<p>The illegality of Proposal 32 was never established at the
table. Nor had the university ever asked CUPE 3903 to withdraw
this proposal at the table. The path forward remains at the
bargaining table, not in the media.</p>
<p>With respect to Proposals 48 and 72, it is CUPE 3903’s
position that these are neither issues of scope nor have they
been bargained to impasse.</p>
<p>With respect to Proposal 48, the offer York tabled on March 1
never responded to the counter we made on February 28. Over
the past six months, the union repeatedly asked York to ensure
the protection of Graduate Assistants, as we believe York
arbitrarily eliminated over 700 Graduate Assistantship
positions. This is the first we heard that this is an issue of
scope. We disagree, nor has it been bargained to impasse.</p>
<p>With respect to Proposal 72 (not 71, as referenced in your
document), the SRCs, as proposed by the university, would
never be acceptable to YUFA for the reasons outlined in the
following statement: <a
href="https://www.yufa.ca/yufa-statement-on-src-bargaining-proposal">https://www.yufa.ca/yufa-statement-on-src-bargaining-proposal</a>.
That is why the union countered with a revised SRC program
that models the program agreed upon by YUFA in the past.</p>
<h1>On the issues of arbitration, mediation, and a ‘way forward’</h1>
<p>Since members rejected the employer’s last offer, York has
repeatedly called for the parties to agree to binding
arbitration as a means of settling the dispute and resolving
the outstanding issues.</p>
<p>CUPE 3903 acknowledges that while arbitration and other
third-party dispute resolution systems have value in certain
circumstances, as Premier Wynne stated on March 7: “the best
agreements come from the bargaining table.”</p>
<p>We ask you to consider the Premier’s and Minister of Advanced
Education Hunter’s request that you return to the bargaining
table immediately and do the right thing for York’s 50,000
undergraduate students.</p>
<p>You have asked three questions of us.</p>
<ol>
<li><em>Will you agree to use interest arbitration for one or
more of the bargaining units</em></li>
<li><em>Will you agree to a non-binding mediator and
factfinder to assist the parties for one or more of the
bargaining units?</em></li>
<li><em>If you are not prepared to agree to either of the
options above, will you provide a realistic counter having
regard to university norms in the history of collective
bargaining at York and norms in the larger university
sector, and withdraw those proposals which are not
appropriate as a strike issue?</em></li>
</ol>
<p>Our responses are as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li>At this time, no, as the parties have not exhausted every
possible effort to resolve their outstanding issues through
negotiation.</li>
<li>As indicated in our answer to the first question, York
must return to the bargaining table as we have not yet
exhausted every possible avenue.</li>
<li>We have provided a realistic offer. We are working within
a realistic framework. Our proposals reflect the changing
needs of our membership that address real concerns around
precarious employment and access to public education. All of
the remaining issues are legitimate strike issues.</li>
</ol>
<p>We are now asking York University to answer the following
question: Will the university agree to meet with the CUPE 3903
Bargaining Team and the provincially-appointed Conciliation
Officer in an effort to resolve the outstanding issues between
the parties?</p>
<p>If the answer is yes, we ask that you please provide meeting
dates as soon as possible. Our Bargaining Team is prepared to
meet whenever it is convenient for you.</p>
<p>We await your reply.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Devin Lefebvre<br>
Chairperson<br>
CUPE 3903</p>
<div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled">
<div class="robots-nocontent sd-block sd-social
sd-social-icon-text sd-sharing">
<h3 class="sd-title">Share this:</h3>
<div class="sd-content">
<ul>
<li class="share-facebook"><a rel="nofollow"
data-shared="sharing-facebook-7038"
class="share-facebook sd-button share-icon"
href="https://3903.cupe.ca/2018/03/15/response-to-york-university-the-way-forward-is-bargaining/?share=facebook&nb=1"
target="_blank" title="Click to share on Facebook"><span>Facebook<span
class="share-count">2</span></span></a></li>
<li class="share-twitter"><a rel="nofollow"
data-shared="sharing-twitter-7038"
class="share-twitter sd-button share-icon"
href="https://3903.cupe.ca/2018/03/15/response-to-york-university-the-way-forward-is-bargaining/?share=twitter&nb=1"
target="_blank" title="Click to share on Twitter"><span>Twitter</span></a></li>
<li class="share-end"><br>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</article>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>