As you have seen from the Principal’s e-mail, Management has decided to change the normal RMC undergraduate teaching schedule in the Fall to 09:00-17:30 in order to accommodate the 10% of undergraduate students who live on the West Coast. As you know, this decision was made without consulting the faculty at large, and the decision to change the RMC undergraduate teaching schedule at all (originally to 10:00-18:30) was made without consultation with the CMCFA. It is only after the decision was announced on 21 July 2020 that Management agreed to discuss the matter with the Faculty Association, and only upon our insistence.

Unfortunately, those discussions have proved unsuccessful. The CMCFA does not support this change to the RMC undergraduate teaching schedule. It is our position that this change violates the following Articles of the Collective Agreement (CA):

• Article 7.01, which asserts the “rights, privileges, and responsibilities of UTs, individually or collectively, to participate in the decision-making of the CMC and its component parts”.
• Article 26.03, which requires Management to consult with the Association on contemplated changes to our conditions of employment and working conditions not governed by the CA;
• Article 8, Past Practice, which protects the existing and well-established practice of an 8:00-4:30 undergraduate teaching schedule. We maintain that the undergraduate teaching schedule is distinct from “work hours.” As such, the Collective Agreement is silent on the issue of the undergraduate teaching schedule; this teaching schedule is reasonable, certain and known; and it meets all the other criteria of Past Practice.

In contrast, Management’s position is that Article 12, “Hours of Work,” grants them the right to change our established teaching schedule without consultation. Article 12 reads:

• 12.01 The standard hours of work are normally seven decimal five (7.5) hours per day; thirty-seven decimal five (37.5) hours per week. Notwithstanding this, the nature of the work and exigencies of the service require flexibility in arrival and departure times and hours of work. A UT shall not be entitled to payment for overtime (including work on a day of rest or on a holiday) or other conditions relating to hours of work, such as call-back, standby, travel on a day of rest, and travel on a holiday.

Our position is that this article grants the UT flexibility in arrival and departure times and hours of work, since almost all of our work in research, teaching, and service is largely self-directed. Scheduled undergraduate classes make up only a fraction of our teaching duties, and an even smaller fraction of our work duties. Conversely, this article protects the employer from paying us any overtime that might result from that flexibility. This interpretation is consistent with all the other Collective Agreements in the Federal Public Service, 16 of which contain the language of “flexibility” in relation to hours of work. In every case, the flexibility is a right granted to the employee to work flexible hours, not a duty that an employer can impose on employees–for instance, by saying “you must be flexible in your work hours and work whenever I say you’ll work, regardless of the established schedule.” Rather, in every case, any changes made to employees’ established schedules require consultation with the union and/or the agreement of the employee.

Left unchallenged, Management’s interpretation of Article 12 would grant to Management the right to change established faculty teaching schedules as it pleases without consultation.

More fundamentally, we believe it is unacceptable and unfair to expect faculty to sacrifice their personal or family time in this way when there are two perfectly reasonable and workable alternatives, both of which we proposed and Management rejected:

1. Keep the 8:00-16:30 undergraduate teaching schedule and allow faculty to accommodate students as necessary, as they had in the Spring.
2. Survey the faculty and fill the final period (16:30-17:30) solely with volunteers. If there were not enough volunteers, we would consult further on an agreeable solution.

Management initially agreed to the second option, but then reneged. Instead, they decided to impose the undergraduate schedule change on everyone teaching at RMC and to treat requests for changes on a case-by-case basis. The Association objected to this approach on the grounds that it unfairly takes advantage of our members, who often sacrifice themselves for their students and who might be unlikely to request accommodation after the fact. It takes particular advantage of our most vulnerable members—namely, those who are least likely to speak out to protect themselves, whether it’s to protect their personal time or their mental health.

Furthermore, the Principal has confirmed with us that Management will *not* accept personal reasons as sufficient grounds to adjust a UT’s timetable in the final period (16:30-17:30). Rather, Management’s position is that only UTs for whom “it is not possible to teach” during the 16:40-17:30 slot (i.e. on human rights grounds) would be accommodated. In contrast, we believe that there are many good reasons–beyond human rights grounds–why faculty should not have to teach in the new 16:40-17:30 time slot. Protecting personal time and mental health are two examples.

As a result, the CMCFA will be filing a policy grievance, and we recommend the following to our members:

1. that all RMC UTs teaching scheduled undergraduate classes respond to the Principal’s e-mail by indicating to their Department Heads only one of two things:

   a) I am volunteering to have a class or classes scheduled between 16:40-17:30 or during the evenings at _insert specific weekday(s) and time(s); or

   b) I do not volunteer to have my courses scheduled from 16:40-7:30 for personal, familial, or other reasons. I will need my timetable adjusted should one or more of my classes be scheduled in this slot.

2. that any RMC UT who answered with b) and finds themselves scheduled from 16:40-17:30 do the following:

   a) inform the CMCFA that they did not volunteer for this time slot and were scheduled for it anyway. This information will help in our policy grievance;

   b) consider filing an individual grievance, which will grant you individual recourse. If there are multiple UTs in this situation, we can file a group grievance, which will grant recourse to all grievors.

In addition, all UTs should be reminded that they have access to “other paid leave” (code 699) due to COVID-19. This code entitles employees to paid leave when they are unable to work for various reasons related to COVID-19, including illness, high risk of illness, family care, and other factors.

For more information on code 699 leave, including when to use it and how to submit for it, see: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/covid-19/pay-pension-benefits/taking-tracking-other-paid-leave-code-699.html#1

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or any other member of the CMCFA Grievance Committee:

• Helen Luu (luu@cmcfa-apcmc.ca)
• Sylvain Leblanc (leblanc@cmcfa-apcmc.ca) – bilingual
• Barbara Falk (falk@cmcfa-apcmc.ca)
• Charles-Philippe Courtois (courtois@cmcfa-apcmc.ca) – bilingual

Sincerely,

Helen Luu

President, CMCFA