Professionals Making A Difference
Negotiators for the PEA and St. Margaret's School have both expressed a desire to resume negotiations for a collective agreement. Unfortunately, establishing a timetable has been difficult. Your Bargaining Committee wants to ensure that when bargaining resumes, productive work can be accomplished.
Some months ago, the PEA requested a technical briefing meeting so that the School could explain how it estimated the costs of some PEA proposals. In some instances we believe the School's estimates are excessive. In other instances the PEA may choose to restructure some proposals based on information from the School in the technical briefing. As the School provided its costing information in June 2007, this technical information should be readily available.
The PEA also requested specific, detailed information from the School regarding the effect of the School's proposals on members. The School advised employees in a memo in early November 2007, “at the union's request, we are now preparing specific details on each individual employee for the PEA's consideration.”
The PEA anticipated receiving all of the above information in December 2007 so that bargaining could resume in January 2008. The School did not forward that information to the PEA at that time.
Representatives of the PEA and the School met in mid-January at which time the PEA restated its request for the information and reminded the School that the PEA could not address cost-related proposals without the information that had requested months earlier.
The PEA renewed that request in writing a week later stating “The Union requires this information to understand the implication of Employer proposals and to clarify costing implications and to resume negotiations.”
The School has not yet provided that information to the PEA. The School has requested a resumption of bargaining, however given that the PEA is unable to negotiate financial issues in the absence of the requested information, substantial progress may be difficult.
Your Bargaining Committee is increasingly frustrated with the School's failure to respond to PEA proposals and its failure to provide your Bargaining Committee with information needed for bargaining.
Your committee members are eager to conclude a collective agreement that will enjoy the support of PEA members. However, given the unnecessary disruption to student services that arises from unproductive bargaining, your Committee is also reluctant to return to negotiations without a clear reason to believe that progress can be made. Particularly at this time, it is important that the quality of the school's programs remain credible.
Your Bargaining Committee has agreed to resume negotiations, even in the absence of the information that the School committed months ago to provide, in the hopes that the School will:
The Bargaining Committee will schedule a meeting with members for a date shortly after the return to school after the Spring Break.
The purpose of the meeting will be to brief members on the bargaining process and the current state of bargaining at that time. Your committee will have recommendations for members at that time and will consult with members about those recommendations.
Bargaining committees for St. Margaret's School and the PEA met on seven occasions in September and October to attempt to achieve a collective agreement. Your Bargaining Committee has spent much of its time trying to understand the School's proposals. The PEA sees some School proposals as greatly diminishing members' rights or benefits. In discussion, the School indicates that is not their intention, however different proposals on those issues have not been provided to your Bargaining Committee.
It is disappointing that little has been accomplished in terms of proposals. Your Committee believes it is important though that the Parties fully understand each others' proposals before progress can be made.
While there have been some changes on specific clauses during those sessions there has been no substantive progress. In fact, the PEA and St. Margaret's School appear to have fundamental differences in their views on the rights of members and the rights of the School.
The issues reported as outstanding in the PEA's October 9, 2007 “SMS Chapter News” continue to be problematic. For example:
Your Committee has attempted to provide responses to proposals from the School in a timely way. At the end of October, the PEA is awaiting responses from the School on 38 issues; the PEA is preparing responses to four outstanding issues of the School; currently nine issues are either so complex, or the parties are so close in positions, that either party may be able to make the next suggestion.
Bargaining committee members are aware that their absences, up to three days per week, have an impact on the services the School provides. Committee members will appreciate the break in bargaining so that they can return to their work areas. Bargaining is expected to resume the week of January 7, 2008.
Bargaining Committee Members:
Ernie Gorrie, Senior Labour Relations officer
All written submissions related to the complaint by the Professional Employees Association that St. Margaret's School has failed to bargain in good faith by engaging in unfair labour practice were made to the Labour Relations Board by last week.
The Professional Employees Association has suggested that the Board may be able to make a decision in the matter based on the documents and written arguments submitted by the PEA and by the School. The Board may decide that additional evidence is needed however and may schedule a hearing date.
As members know, bargaining was adjourned when the PEA believed the School was not bargaining in good faith and made application to the Labour Relations Board for a remedial order.
Prior to negotiations breaking off only modest progress had been made in mostly “housekeeping” areas and non-contentious areas. Proposals regarding significant issues (e.g., posting of positions, assignment of work, vacations, other time off, equivalencies, and other matters) had been introduced and some clarification had been exchanged, but substantive bargaining had not taken place. As the PEA and the School had agreed that non-monetary issues would be negotiated before monetary issues, there had been no negotiation of monetary issues including salaries and wages.
Members are reminded to complete the Benefits Priority Survey online. If you have lost your password, please contact Ernie Gorrie by July 3, 2007 or Barinder Rasode after July 3.
The PEA will keep members advised of information as it becomes available from the Labour Relations Board. We are mindful however that many St. Margaret's School Chapter members are not at the School during summer months.
Please ensure that the PEA has a current, non-work mailing address for you.
You can update your mailing information by clicking on the “Change of Address” link on this web site's home page, or by phone at 385-8791.
The following is the link to the St. Margaret's School Benefits Priority Survey.
Please have your password available and click on the link above to complete the survey.
Contract negotiations have been on hold since June 4, 2007 when the PEA filed a formal complaint to the Labour Relations Board that St. Margaret's School has failed to bargain in good faith. Your Bargaining Committee has continued to work however, to prepare for when negotiations resume.
Throughout May and June, the PEA and St. Margaret's School agreed on a series of evenings, weekends and work days for negotiations. The School agreed that Bargaining Committee members could be free from work on specific workdays because of negotiations.
Wednesday June 13 had been scheduled as a bargaining day and members of your Bargaining Committee had already been freed from work responsibilities. Given that negotiations would not take place on June 13, the PEA requested Union leave for your Bargaining Committee members to prepare for the resumption of negotiations.
St. Margaret's School approved Union leave for only one Committee member and denied Union leave to the other Committee members. This made it impossible for your Bargaining Committee to meet as requested to prepare for further negotiations.
It is hard to understand how the denial of the leaves could have been based on cost to the School. The Union would have paid the School for the Union leaves.
It is hard to understand how the denial of the leaves could have been based on operational requirements. The School had agreed your Committee members could be absent to conduct negotiations.
It is hard to understand why the School would want your Committee to not be prepared to resume bargaining as soon as possible when the School says it wants a contract by June 30.
Collective agreement clause 2.04(h) says that a Union leave request, “will normally be granted unless, in the reasonable opinion of the Head of School or designate, the absence would interfere with the satisfactory and timely performance of the staff member's duties.” The School has not explained how Committee members' absence on June 13 to prepare for bargaining would have interfered with the satisfactory and timely performance of their duties when their absence for negotiations would not have resulted in such interference.
The PEA cannot understand why the School would deny cost-free leave to your Bargaining Committee members when they were not needed for work. It is even more confusing when the PEA had advised the School that the purpose of the leave was to prepare for the resumption of negotiations. Your Bargaining Committee will continue to work to be prepared to resume negotiations, despite this roadblock.
The PEA has filed a grievance against the School regarding this denial of Union leave.
Ernie Gorrie, Labour Relations Officer
The Professional Employees Association filed a complaint under Section 11 of the Labour Relations Code on Monday June 4, 2007. Section 11 requires that an “employer must not fail or refuse to bargain collectively in good faith in British Columbia and to make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement”. The Labour Relations Board (“the Board”) has given St. Margaret's School until June 12 to make its submission in response to the PEA's complaint. We are unable to resume bargaining while the issue of whether the Employer is failing to bargain in good faith remains outstanding.
The School is required to provide the PEA with a copy when it makes its submission to the Board. As of the time of publication of this bulletin, the PEA has not received its copy, so we believe the School has not made its submission. The Board will not make a decision until after it receives the School's submission or the deadline has passed for submissions. Consequently, it appears unlikely that bargaining will resume this week.
The issue in dispute is a fundamental issue for the PEA in our relationship with St. Margaret's School. Labour relations can be a partnership. The PEA seeks harmonious relationships with employers. In fact, the PEA's Constitution has as the second object of the PEA, “to encourage, promote and maintain enlightened and innovative principles of labour relations”. We are seeking to achieve that goal with St. Margaret's School, but we cannot do it alone.
No partnership can be strong when one partner believes the other partner is not acting in good faith. The PEA cannot continue to negotiate while we believe the School is bargaining in bad faith. Further, we cannot ignore what we believe to be a violation of fundamental labour relations law. As much as we would prefer to be at the bargaining table, we believe we must take this action that involves short term difficulty to achieve a healthy relationship based on mutual respect.
Lawyers for the PEA and for St. Margaret's School have been working to achieve a mutually satisfactory resolution without the need for the Board to make a ruling. While it would be preferable for the School and the PEA to be able to resolve this for ourselves, we have been unsuccessful so far.
More troubling, since the PEA made its complaint to the Board, we believe the School has continued to misrepresent what has taken place and has continued to interfere with your Bargaining Committee's ability to negotiate a collective agreement on behalf of members.
For example, in its memo to staff dated June 7, 2007 the School stated, “Because our Bargaining Bulletin Update Number 1 didn't confirm that our signing bonus offer was verbal, the Union has filed an application to the Labour Relations Board for a finding that the School is bargaining in bad faith.”
This statement is simply false.
The PEA's application stated,
“...the Employer has committed an unfair labour practice by engaging in improper communications with the bargaining unit members during the course of collective bargaining. Further, the Employer's communications have interfered with the PEA's vested and exclusive authority to represent the interests of its members and to fulfil its obligations under the Code.”
The PEA application went on to describe three ways in which the School violated requirements of the Code,
This Union leave would cost the School nothing, as the Union would reimburse the School for committee members' salary or wages.
This leave would cause no inconvenience to the School as the committee members were already scheduled to be absent for the purpose of bargaining.
The combination of the School's negotiating proposals, its initial communiqué to PEA members, its failure to yet make a submission to the Board, its continuing misrepresentations and its interference with your Bargaining Committee's efforts to bargain efficiently and effectively, seem contradictory to the School's statement that it wishes to conclude a collective agreement by June 30.
We hope to soon resolve these matters, either directly or with the assistance of the Board, and your committee hopes to achieve a satisfactory agreement in a timely manner.
Ernie Gorrie, Labour Relations Officer
Collective bargaining is not a free-for-all battle between opponents. It is the orderly process through which two Parties, the Employer and the Union, advance their own interests while recognizing the other Party's interests. Fundamental to an orderly process is adherence to rules and commitments.
The provincial legislature established the Labour Relations Code (“the Code”) as the law that governs labour relations in BC. The Labour Relations Board (“the Board”) has authority to deal with major labour relations differences. It is, in effect, a “court” for labour relations.
One of the rules in negotiating is that the Parties must bargain “fairly”. Sections 6, 11 and 27 of the Code describe this. The Board has made various decisions about what constitutes unfair bargaining. One of the basic rules is that the Employer must bargain with a union's bargaining committee and not bargain directly with employees.
One method that Employers use to avoid a union's bargaining committee is to tell employees about its negotiating proposals before it presents those negotiating proposals to the Union's bargaining committee. St. Margaret's School has done precisely that.
On May 20, 2007, St. Margaret's School told your Bargaining Committee that it intended to communicate with employees about a signing bonus. We cautioned the School not to do anything that would be contrary to proper bargaining. On May 22 St. Margaret's School again told us that it would go ahead with its communication directly with employees. We hoped that it would reconsider, but it did not.
Your Bargaining Committee wants you to have no confusion about the issue of a signing bonus.
St. Margaret's School has provided you with false information.
In its memo to you on May 24, 2007 St. Margaret's School said:
“We have included in our proposals a one-time cash signing bonus to each and every PEA member per fte in exchange for a signed contract by June 30, 2007.”
St. Margaret's School has not given your Bargaining Committee any such negotiating proposal.
St. Margaret's School told you, “The lump sum amount the School has offered per 1.0 fte is $2,800.00.”
Again, the School has not made any such negotiating proposal to your Bargaining Committee.
St. Margaret's School told you, “The signing bonus offer has been extended for the PEA bargaining agent's consideration on a time limited basis expiring June 30, 2007, the end of the fiscal year, for accounting reasons.”
Yet again, no such offer has been extended to the PEA for consideration.
In early May, your bargaining committee entered into a bargaining protocol agreement with St. Margaret's School about how bargaining would be conducted. That protocol included agreement that all proposals would be in writing. It also specifically included agreement that any proposal made orally was for discussion purposes and did not commit the Party to anything.
That part of the protocol agreement is very important because it permits either Party to “try out” an idea at bargaining without having to be committed to the idea. Either Party can see if the other side is at all interested so that discussion can take place, but neither Party has to worry that the discussions will result in the other Party thinking that agreement is assured. The idea is just an idea until the negotiating proposal is in writing.
Again, your Bargaining Committee wants you to know that St. Margaret's School has not presented a negotiating proposal for a signing bonus.
Not only has the School not made a written negotiating proposal, the School has not even made an oral proposal for a signing bonus. All the School has told your Bargaining Committee is that it will, at some point, make a proposal for a signing bonus of $2,800 per FTE.
Your committee has no idea what conditions would be attached for such a bonus except that the School will cancel the offer on June 30, 2007. Maybe the School will insist on no wage increase in 2007. Maybe the school will insist on some employees receiving pay increases while other employees take pay cuts. Maybe it would require that we enter into a long-term agreement with low wage increases in each year. We don't know, because the School has not made a bargaining proposal regarding a signing bonus.
Your Bargaining Committee is committed to achieving a collective agreement in a timely manner. More importantly we are committed to achieving a collective agreement that you will find satisfactory over the long term.
In order to conclude a collective agreement, your Bargaining Committee needs to know that the rules of fair bargaining apply and that both sides will abide by the rules.
Consequently, on June 4, 2007 the PEA filed an application to the Labour Relations Board reporting our belief that St. Margaret's School is bargaining in bad faith by attempting to negotiate directly with employees contrary to the Labour Relations Code.
The PEA advised St. Margaret's School today that we cannot continue to bargain while we believe the School is not bargaining in good faith.
Bargaining will resume when this matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the St. Margaret's School Bargaining Committee and the PEA.
We are confident that, knowing this information, St. Margaret's School Chapter members will understand why your Bargaining Committee was unable to discuss the “proposal” that does not exist while we were consulting with our legal counsel.
Ernie Gorrie, Senior Labour Relations Officer
The Bargaining Committee for the PEA St. Margaret's School Chapter has worked hard since the previous bargaining bulletin to conclude a collective agreement with St. Margaret's School in a timely fashion. Negotiations took place on until at least 8:00 PM on several evenings. Your Bargaining Committee negotiated on Friday May 18 as well as all day on Saturday May 19 and Sunday May 20. After a one-day break for Victoria Day on May 21, bargaining resumed for May 22 and 23.
Despite these efforts a large number of apparently minor issues remain unresolved and many substantive matters yet require attention. Both bargaining committees have expressed an interest in achieving a collective agreement by the expiry of this collective agreement on June 30, 2007. The priority of your bargaining committee however, is to achieve a collective agreement that will protect and advance the long term interests of SMS Chapter members.
Negotiators are working to enhance rights and benefits for employees of St. Margaret's School. This work is difficult as the School appears to be interested in removing important rights and protections that have been achieved in previous negotiations and ensuring that employees are not treated equally. While your Bargaining Committee is working to achieve a collective agreement in a timely fashion, your Committee is committed to achieving a collective agreement that will provide long-term benefit for members.
Ernie Gorrie, PEA Labour Relations Officer
Negotiators for St. Margaret's School and the Professional Employees Association met on May 9, 2007 to begin negotiations for a third collective agreement. The first meeting concluded agreement on a bargaining protocol and the exchange of full packages of proposals for changes to the collective agreement.
Negotiations take place between representatives of the employees (the union bargaining committee) and representatives of the Employer (the employer bargaining committee). Bargaining protocols are commonly addressed before bargaining begins. Bargaining protocols are the agreements between a union and an employer about how bargaining will proceed.
It is common for the bargaining committees to make an agreement regarding communications. The employer's committee makes a commitment to not communicate directly with employees during bargaining. The union's committee makes a similar commitment to not communicate with the Employer directly during bargaining. (The Employer in this instance is the Board of Governors of St. Margaret's School.) Both committees also agree to not discuss bargaining matters with the media during the period of bargaining. These agreements ensure that bargaining will take place between the committees at the bargaining table, not through other processes.
Your bargaining committee found it interesting that the SMS bargaining committee would not agree to limit its communications with PEA members and agreement on the above communications protocols was not achieved. This may result in difficulties as bargaining proceeds.
In past years, the Employer has brought few bargaining proposals forward while the PEA has identified many areas for improvements in the collective agreement. The relationship appears to have changed in this set of negotiations. The PEA brought 50 pages of proposals for improvements to the collective agreement. The Employer brought 37 pages of proposals, far more than when bargaining took place in 2004. Clearly there is much work to be done to come to agreement on 87 pages of proposed changes to a 42 page collective agreement.
Your bargaining committee will be analyzing the Employer's proposal to prepare a response for when bargaining resumes on May 16, 2007.
