Executive Committee for 1999/2000
for the members of the Executive Committee of the McMaster University Faculty Association for 1999/2000. Their terms
of office began on May 4, 1999.
President's Report
(delivered at the April 27, 1999 Annual General Meeting)
The principal features of the system date from the mid 1980s when under the terms of a tripartite agreement between the Association, the administration and the Board of Governors, the Joint Administration/Faculty Association Committee was established in its present form. There had been a Joint Committee in place for several years previously but it had foundered often on the issue of dispute resolution in regard to remuneration discussions and the 1984 agreement sought to remove this hazard by instituting "final offer selection."
The new Joint Committee was given three main terms of reference -- first, to provide a forum wherein both parties could "discuss issues and concerns confronting the University"; second, to consider and discuss each year any issues relating to the terms and conditions of employment of faculty; and third, to provide a forum for negotiating and determining faculty remuneration. It is on the general question of how well the Joint Committee is fulfilling these responsibilities that I wish to comment. But before I do so, I want to address a different but related issue having to do with the Committee, an issue that was given scant attention by its architects but which now appears to be a potentially troublesome one. I refer to the matter of the Joint Committee's constituency and to the related questions of who does the Joint Committee represent and for whom does it negotiate?
The document describing the Joint Committee relies throughout upon the familiar term "faculty", a word with which we are all comfortable but for which no formal definition exists within any document of this University. The McMaster University Act (1976) uses the word but only in the sense of referring to an administrative division of the University. The Act defines the "teaching staff" of the University to be those employees "who hold the academic rank of professor, associate professor, assistant professor or lecturer" and most of us equate that group of employees with the faculty. We acknowledge that the faculty defined in this manner includes persons in all of the Schools and Faculties who may be employed full-time or part-time and who may be paid by the University or by some external agency. But are they all represented by the Joint Committee? The answer to this question is not to be found in any written statements but rather in a set of conventions that have developed over the years. For example, there would be little argument over the claim that with respect to such "universal" issues as academic freedom, faculty conduct, research misconduct and ethics, sexual harassment and so on, the Joint Committee in its deliberations represents all faculty within this University, though of course it has no exclusive or paramount jurisdiction in any such area.
But on issues of remuneration, the Joint Committee's jurisdiction is more restricted and the boundaries in places are contested. The main such boundary encompasses that majority of the full-time faculty whose remunerations are paid out of University funds and who are members of the Career Progress/ Merit scheme. The responsibility of the Joint Committee for negotiating remuneration for that group has never been in dispute and it was for that group that the check-off of Association dues was made compulsory a few years ago. A different boundary has been drawn around the so-called "clinical faculty", those full-time faculty in Health Sciences who receive some portion of their remuneration from health-care fees billed through the RMA. It is agreed that the Joint Committee does not negotiate on behalf of these faculty in regard to remuneration but in the past year or so there have been one or two "border incidents". The question of whether changes in the base salary components of the remuneration of such faculty is a legitimate subject for discussion within the Joint Committee was one such issue and more recently, a dispute over the application of the changes in the tuition assistance program for dependents was another. Neither of these issues is fully resolved to the satisfaction of all parties and they and similar issues will demand attention in the future.
Another boundary question looms in situations, again not uncommon in Health Sciences, where contractually-limited appointments are made for quite specific purposes and without the expectation that the appointee perform the full range of faculty responsibili-ties in teaching, research and service. The contracts in some such cases may exclude the appointees from the CP/M scheme and this will cause another jurisdictional headache for the Joint Committee.
Let me turn now, as I said I would, to the question of how well is the Joint Committee discharging its responsibilities. In terms of its overall performance I would be inclined to give it no better than a C+ grade for the following reasons. First, it has virtually ceased to be a forum wherein the parties discuss issues and concerns confronting the University. Neither party is at all pro-active in pursuing this goal. Each is prepared to react to the other's proposals but the challenge of identifying and addressing issues of common concern within the Committee excites neither one. Open-ended, wide-ranging discussions within the Committee have given way to private meetings, in some years scheduled on a regular basis, between the MUFA President and the Provost and between the two Presidents.
My second criticism is that the joint commitment to discussing and reviewing within the Committee issues having to do with "the terms and conditions of employment of faculty", is weakened too often by oversight or neglect. The fact that the subject of the recently implemented scheme for the posting on the student web of faculty teaching ratings was never even broached in the Committee at any early point in its development is one example; the recent establishment of the President's committee on retirement issues and the pension surplus without the members of the Joint Committee being given an opportunity to comment on the draft terms of reference is a second, perhaps more contentious, one.
Finally, I am critical of the looseness that both sides have allowed to develop at times in the procedures for the negotiation of faculty remuneration. I will cite two examples. The first is the agreement that was reached a few years ago in the Committee to employ a mediator if circumstances demanded it. I am not opposed to mediation but, though I have no expertise in such matters, I believe that its adoption within our system would change the mechanism of dispute resolution and undermine the rationale for "final offer selection". I assume also that the architects of our system considered fully all such options for dispute resolution and chose the one over the others for good reason. My second example has to do with the dates that are given as the deadlines for certain phases in the negotiation process. The flexibility that has been permitted and presumably agreed to in the honouring of these deadlines I find disturbing and I cannot help but think that it puts at risk the integrity of the whole process.
Though my assessment of its recent performance is lukewarm, the Joint Committee still has my strong support as the preferred system for faculty-administration discussions and negotiations. Though it is difficult to gauge the level of support that exists for the system among the silent majority of our faculty, I prefer the optimistic interpretation that they are generally content with it. What I would call for is a strong reaffirmation of support for the principles and purposes of the Joint Committee and a revitalization of its work by those dedicated and interested persons who I know are present in the ranks of both the Association and the administration.
I would like to conclude with a few comments directed towards the Executive of the Association. The recently completed negotiations underscored for me the fact that much of the Association's business is conducted in line with established practice rather than with statute or by-law. For most of the work this is convenient and efficient. But in the realm of remuneration negotiations there are some practices that I believe require tightening up and perhaps some codification, especially if multi-year agreements are to become the norm and the memory in the system is thereby attenuated. First, the composition and appointment of the standing Remuneration Committee should be formalized (the Association by-laws are silent on such matters). At present, the members are chosen by the Committee Chair and the membership is not subject to approval by the Executive, as it should be. Second, in those years when remuneration negotiations are called for, the selection of the Association's representatives for the Joint Committee negotiations should be considered and approved by the Executive with input from the Remuneration Committee. If, in such a year, the negotiations proceed into Phase Two (beyond February 1), then the opportunity to change the negotiating team should be formally considered by the Executive. Finally, when a tentative agreement is reached in the Joint Committee and prior to the vote on that agreement, the Executive and its Remuneration Committee should endorse and issue a statement to all members stating their positions on the proposed agreement.
I have enjoyed my year as President and I extend a warm vote of thanks to the members of the Executive who have assisted me and to our dedicated staff of Phyllis and Kelly whose insights, hard work and good humour keep the system functioning. To the Association and its members, I extend my very best wishes for the future.
Les King
Further to the Joint Committee Agreement which was ratified in April by faculty on the CP/M Scheme, members
of the Joint Committee addressed the issue of including the value of delayed ATB payments in the nominal
salary effective July 1 of the relevant year. They passed the following Supplementary Letter of Agreement
for 1999-2002:
Supplementary Letter of
Agreement
Employee contributions to the Pension Plan for 1999-2000 and 2001-02 shall be based on the salary levels as of July 1, 1999 and 2001 respectively. For the purposes of calculating pension entitlement, the regular salary for 1999-2000 shall include the increment on November 1, 1999, and that for 2001-02 shall include the increment on October 1, 2001. Revenue Canada rules concerning maximum pension entitlement shall apply. The pension entitlement calculation may be amended on the consent of the Faculty Association and the Administration.
Approved by Joint Committee
April 19, 1999
The across-the-board increase for 2000-2001 will be paid on July 1, 2000 and thus is not included in the above agreement..
It was further agreed that this Letter of Agreement would apply to all faculty taking normal retirement or retiring under the Rule of 80.
If you are a faculty member who will be considered for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor or for
promotion to Professor in the coming year, you may find it helpful to have a faculty colleague act as an advisor
during this process. This colleague can assist in the preparation of your research resume, teaching dossier and
other material. An advisor can also accompany you to interviews at various stages of the process should this
prove necessary.
This practice has been informally sanctioned in the past. Proposed revisions to the Tenure and Promotion Policy explicitly state that a faculty member may be accompanied by a faculty colleague acting as an advisor when appearing before a Departmental, Faculty or Senate Committee.
Please feel free to contact the Chair of the MUFA Committee on Special Enquiries and Grievances should you desire further information concerning this policy or assistance in seeking out an appropriate advisor.
Martin Dooley, Chair
Special Enquiries and Grievances Committee
1998 OCUFA Teaching & Academic Librarianship Awards
Established in 1973, the teaching awards have been presented annually by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) to acknowledge the contributions made to teaching by
outstanding professors and, since 1990, to librarianship by academic librarians.
In announcing the 1998 Award winners, OCUFA President Deborah Flynn said, "Each year OCUFA is presented with the daunting task of choosing the best among those who inspire and inform in their teaching and demonstrate exceptional dedication in their work as academic librarians."
Recent salary settlements at Ontario universities show that once again McMaster faculty are near the bottom
of the pack. Not only that, but negotiators for other faculty associations report that at their universities no initial
appointments of faculty with doctorates are made at the floor salary for an assistant professor. At McMaster,
however, beginning faculty with doctorates were appointed last July at the floor salary of $41,961 in
departments in which market forces did not dictate a higher starting salary. Their peers at similar Ontario
universities appear to be starting at salaries around $50,000.
The obvious conclusion for McMaster faculty who are in the early stages of their career is that it is in their financial interest to find an academic position elsewhere. Given the history of below-average salary
increases at McMaster under the current administration, it would not be financially advantageous to stay at McMaster if an offer from another university were merely matched by the McMaster administration.
This state of affairs is in my opinion a sad reflection of the present administration's very weak commitment to keeping the salaries of McMaster faculty competitive with those at other research-intensive universities with which the administration likes to compare us.
The table below shows the scale (across-the-board) increases negotiated to date; a blank cell means that nothing has yet been negotiated for the faculty at that university for that year. Universities whose faculty associations have not yet reached a salary settlement for 1999-2000 are not mentioned.
David Hitchcock
Susan Elliott joins Executive
