par Louigi Addario-Berry, Président de l’AMPS
Vendredi dernier, l’équipe de négociation du COFAM a transmis à McGill l’intégralité de notre cahier de demandes communes – pécuniaires et non pécuniaires. Ce document est le fruit d’un travail véritablement herculéen de la part de l’équipe – comme en témoigne le volume du document (450 pages !!)
Au cours du week-end, j’ai lu le cahier de demandes et j’ai sélectionné ci-dessous certains des points qui me semblent les plus importants. Ma sélection est déjà assez longue, mais c’est parce que l’équipe de négociation a fait un excellent travail en élaborant un cahier qui vise à protéger et à améliorer tant d’aspects de notre environnement de travail. N’oubliez pas qu’il y aura également des négociations spécifiques à la Faculté des sciences ; il est donc encore possible de négocier des points qui ne figurent pas dans ce cahier.
Certains d’entre vous souhaiteront peut-être consulter eux-mêmes le cahier de demandes soumis ; j’ai donc ajouté un lien vers celui-ci ci-dessous. La présentation de l’ensemble du document peut sembler un peu intimidante ; voici quelques informations qui pourraient vous aider à l’analyser.
La colonne 1 contient les demandes initiales présentées par le COFAM ; celles-ci sont bien antérieures au cahier de demandes actuel.
La colonne 2 contient les réponses de McGill au cahier de demandes initial.
La colonne 3 contient notre cahier de demandes actuel ; si vous souhaitez comprendre ce que nous avons actuellement mis sur la table, c’est cette colonne que vous devez consulter.
La colonne 4 contient les articles qui ont déjà reçu l’accord de l’équipe de négociation de la COFAM et de l’Université McGill.
La colonne 5 est réservée aux commentaires.
Veuillez noter que les articles de la colonne 3 n’ont pas tous été soumis pour la première fois le 11 septembre : beaucoup l’ont été début juillet. Cela signifie que certaines priorités soulevées depuis par les membres de l’AMPS et d’autres membres du syndicat COFAM ne figurent pas encore dans notre cahier de demandes. Nous avons pris connaissance de toutes les priorités soulevées par les membres, mais nous ne pouvons pas modifier les parties du cahier de demandes que nous avons déjà soumises tant que nous n’avons pas reçu de réponse de McGill, et McGill a refusé de répondre aux derniers éléments de notre cahier de demandes tant que nous ne lui aurons pas soumis l’intégralité de ce document. C’est en partie pour cette raison que l’équipe de négociation a travaillé d’arrache-pied pour transmettre le cahier de demandes à McGill dans les plus brefs délais. C’est également la raison pour laquelle vous remarquerez peut-être quelques fautes de frappe, des maladresses grammaticales, des passages surlignés de manière étrange, ou encore, ici et là, un « 2027 » qui devrait être « 2026 », dans la version soumise du cahier de demandes. L’équipe a travaillé jusqu’à la dernière minute, et il reste quelques détails mineurs – rien de substantiel – à corriger.
En somme, si une question qui vous tient à cœur n’est pas abordée ici, cela ne signifie pas pour autant qu’elle a été ignorée par l’équipe de négociation ; celle-ci prévoit peut-être encore de la soulever lors des négociations du COFAM, et il se peut également que nous puissions l’aborder dans le cadre des négociations propres à la faculté des sciences.
Vous trouverez ici la version du cahier de demandes qui a été déposée le 11 septembre. You can find version of the demand book that was submitted on September 11.
Vous trouverez ci-dessous mes commentaires sur certains aspects du cahier de revendications qui m’ont particulièrement marqué lors de ma lecture. Notez qu’il s’agit d’une appréciation personnelle : ces points ne prétendent pas être « les plus importants » au sens absolu du terme. Avant d’aborder ces commentaires, voici une photo du gâteau que nous avons offert lors de la soirée de remerciement organisée la semaine dernière en l’honneur de l’équipe de négociation. Il est presque aussi épais que le cahier de demandes !
Les réflexions que je présente ci-dessous sont rédigées uniquement en anglais, car je fais fréquemment référence à des passages tirés du cahier des charges lui-même, qui est à ce jour un document rédigé en anglais.
Highlights from the demand book
Article 3 concerns how the agreement will be applied. This article of the demand book in particular states the important requirement that McGill treat its employees justly (3.5).
Article 5, on relations between AMPS and McGill, requires McGill to allow AMPS representatives or legal counsel to access McGill’s premises to assist AMPS with its business (5.2).
Article 6 protects academics in the faculty from McGill unilaterally changing our working conditions, by enforcing that McGill’s policies that affect academic staff can’t be changed accept by mutual consent. McGill has objected to much of this section of our demand book.
Article 8 concerns disagreements and grievances. AMPS wishes to be involved in representing members in grievances whenever an employee encounters a problem concerning the collective agreement (8.9). McGill’s response appears to take issue with this; and suggests that McGill wants to be able to talk to members directly about collective agreement issues without involving the union.
Article 9 is about academic freedom. There are some paragraphs in here that I think are worth simply quoting in toto.
9.2 Where applicable, every Employee shall have the right to organize course content, classroom or laboratory activities, and evaluations and to employ methodology and didactic material, including textbooks, for the courses assigned to them, in a manner appropriate to the course and consistent with relevant academic standards as well as course descriptions approved by Senate.
9.3 The Employees have the freedom to pursue research and artistic creation and to disseminate their results, without being constrained by political or disciplinary orthodoxies, monetary incentives or punitive measures as a result of their academic pursuits.
9.8 The Employer and its officers have a duty to protect the academic freedom of the Employees, both individually and collectively, from infringement and undue external influence as well as to maintain the Employer’s institutional autonomy.
Article 10 is about academic duties. This section lays out an expansive view of what our academic duties are in the faculty. It also is the section that describes the conversion of contract academic staff to the tenure track (see 10.6.1 in particular), and protects the job duties of those whose classifications do not change.
Article 11 – Appointment, reappointment, tenure and promotion
Among other things, this article describes the reasons for which tenure can be denied, and prohibits the university from denying tenure because of numerical limits on tenured appointments, budgetary considerations, program restructuring, or other institutional priorities. It also stipulates that deans and provosts must not override departments on hiring recommendations subsequent to a job search.
In the description of how reappointment and promotion decisions are made, the article states that in considering teaching and pedagogical contributions, evaluation « shall be based on effectiveness, quality, significance and impact, rather than student feedback alone » (see 11.3.2.2 and, relatedly, 11.6.1.4). Similarly, when evaluating research contributions, it states that « No assessment of research and scholarly activity shall rely exclusively on quantitative indicators […] Such indicators may be considered only where relevant to the field and shall be assessed in context. » (see 11.3.3.5). It also takes a broad vision of service contributions, stating that « Service may include administrative, supervisory, committee, governance, mentoring, professional, academic, public, community-engaged, or equity-related work, including work that supports students, colleagues, programs, academic units, scholarly or professional communities, or communities beyond the Employer. » (see 11.3.4.2).
It allows employees undergoing tenure review to supplement their tenure dossiers with relevant new information at any stage of the review process before the final decision is made, provided that the material is submitted in a timely manner and that its relevance is explained (see 11.6.2.1).
It provides a detailed, explicit and transparent appointment and tenure process, giving responsibility to departments to decide on field-appropriate standards and criteria.
Finally, it protects the meaning of tenure as it now exists in McGill regulations, which McGill could otherwise unilaterally change: « An Employee awarded tenure shall be appointed for an Indefinite Term that may not be terminated except for cause« .
Article 13, on disciplinary measures, protects employees from arbitrary punishment: « The onus shall be on the Employer to demonstrate that any disciplinary or administrative measure taken against a member is fair, reasonable, commensurate and compliant with this agreement. » (13.5.1).
Article 14 provides that all employees have the right to request reduced load appointments, and that such requests shall be approved unless the employer can demonstrate that the proposed arrangement would cause a severe disruption in the operation of the academic unit (14.03). It also emphasizes that an employee decision to take a reduced load appointment shall not be treated as evidence of reduced commitment, reduced productivity, or diminished contribution (14.16).
Article 15 describes sabbatic and other leaves. In addition to protecting the sabbatic leave policy from changes, this article also provides that a sabbatic leave is suspended if an individual on sabbatic leave has to take disability leave, maternity leave, parental leave, adoption leave, or another form of leave protected by the agreement (15.42).
The article also provides that leaves of absence can be arranged with less than 3 months notice, in exceptional circumstances and on compassionate grounds.
It also provides for full pay during one year of parental leave, and an additional one year of unpaid parental leave. These leaves can be taken by one parent, or split between two parents as they wish.
It additionally provides for up to one year of care leave (without pay) for close relatives with serious physical of psychological health problems, upon employee request.
Article 16 describes our privacy rights in the workplace. It insists among other things that there should be no digital of physical surveillance of us in the workplace without our consent. McGill has already objected to this clause at the bargaining table.
Article 17 concerns intellectual property and patents. One of its provisions is that « The Employer shall not use or share, including uploading to any artificial intelligence system in any way, copyrighted works created by the Employee without their written consent » (see 17.4) It also provides that we own any of our inventions, unless we invented them on employer time or using employer resources (17.13) and that McGill can’t upload our IP to an AI (17.17).
Article 21 comprehensively describes the accommodations McGill must make for members with disabilities, including improving the flexibility surrounding the forms of medical documentation required to request accommodation.
Article 23 describes how McGill will value contributions of Black and Indigenous employees. It recognizes that service contributions of Black and Indigenous employees to their communities, to students, and to colleagues are frequently over and above regular service contributions, and provides mechanisms for Black and Indigenous employees to adjust their service contributions accordingly.
Article 24 concerns governance. Our demand book provides for the associations to have representation in the searches for new provosts/presidents. McGill objects to this. The demand book also insists that a majority of external members of our Board of Governors should be academic employees of Canadian universities.
Article 26 concerns management of infrastructure, purchasing, procurement and travel. Importantly, it enforces that McGill will honour its tri-council obligations. This means if McGill says they’ll provide some form of support if you get a grant, and they get a grant, they are bound to actually provide that support (26.3). It also provides that all expense reports and purchase requests will be processed within 2 weeks (26.8).
Article 27 is about AI. Its first paragraph is, in my view, extremely important:
« Where the Employer is considering making plans or proposes changes related to the adoption, availability, or use of technologies or systems that will impact conditions of employment and/or the academic duties and responsibilities of Employees, the Employer shall provide the Association with information regarding the proposed changes including but not limited to an assessment of the technology’s anticipated impacts, including privacy, bias, security, and labour implications, allowing sufficient time for the Association to consider the proposed changes. No changes of any kind can be made by the Employer without the express written consent of the Association. »
Some other highlights from the AI article: these articles ensure that AI is not used as an excuse for the transfer of new labour onto academics in the faculty, or to lay off academics in the faculty, or as an excuse for inadequate hiring.
27.8 The Employer shall not directly or indirectly use AI systems to replace Employees or limit the number of new academic staff hires.
27.10 The Employer shall not use AI systems in a way that directly or indirectly leads to the reduction of other human resources including administrative and support staff, teaching assistants, or research assistants that work for or with Employees in the Association.
Article 28 is about our pensions. It protects us from unilateral changes to our pension plan without our consent; restores defined-benefit pensions; increases the employer contribution level to a minimum 10.5% of salaries; provides for employer contributions to pensions until the age of 71; indexes our pensions to the Consumer Price Index; and ensures that employees have adequate representation on the pension administration committee.
Article 29 concerns benefits. It doubles the basic life ensurance coverage and provides coverage for eyecare and massage therapy.
Article 30 increases the value of the professional development fund, and the number of years it can be rolled over.
Article 31 aims to bring our salary up to the top 3 of the U15 based on three measures: salary at the 10th percentile, 50th percentile, and 90th percentile. It also indexes the envelope for salary increases to the inflation rate. Details on ongoing annual salary increases will be bargained faculty-by-faculty, but bringing salaries up to the level of our comparator institutions will already require a 39k across-the-board salary increase for all academic staff, independent of rank and classification, over a 3-year period.
Note that ~40k per member for about 1000 cofam members would be about $40M in additional spending. Last year, McGill created an operating surplus of over $43M/year in a single year through austerity and increased enrolments and tuition. This all went to a « sinking fund » for repaying debt McGill has chosen to incur for the sustainability park project. It could have gone to people. If McGill can find $43M in one year, they can find $40M over three years.
Article 31 also increases the raise that comes with a promotion in rank (31.5), and makes the allocation of anomaly, retention and equity raises a more collegial process (31.7).
Article 32, concerning our working environment,provides that McGill shall provide us with adequate administrative support to enable us to carry out our academic duties (32.1), and in particular protects our right to private offices (32.5) and to work computers (32.15-16) and tech support (32.21), among many other things. It also provides that retired academics retain library and email access for life (32.23).
Article 33, on workload, enforces a fair and equitable distribution of work, taking into account career stage, personal circumstances, and other factors. It contains a detailed description of factors that should be included in a workload assessment (that is not meant to be exhaustive).