The Local has received inquiries as to the status of the RTW claims submitted after the strike. I have received the following update from Ted Montgomery:
Update on the Return-to-Work Grievances.
The colleges have been delaying the process by raising various preliminary objections. Their original objection was dismissed. The colleges amended their position reframing the next set of objections as “clarifications” they sought from the Board which would narrow the scope of claims to only those where the weekly or annual TCH's limits were exceeded. The Board wanted to hear some evidence first. The union proceeded with a limited number of grievors over four days of hearings in the fall, establishing the variety as well as the legitimacy of claims. The Board is now satisfied that it has enough evidence to proceed to the parties arguing on this colleges' objection.
In a nutshell, the colleges are claiming that work is movable so even if a teacher works 80 hours a week for the rest of the term, post-strike, that does not merit any payment for completing the courses. The union takes the position that the colleges reduced salary by the 3 weeks of strike, so they have to expect 3 weeks less work. To the extent that they require a full year's work – the semester completion strategies – the colleges have to pay for any such work. Also, any additional work generated by having to amend courses or take on added duties is compensable. This was the model used by arbitrators in previous post-strike circumstances. St. Clair and the other colleges are this time attempting to get the full year's work - or as close to it as they can - but not compensate faculty for making up work lost because of the strike. The union has said, faculty are quite prepared to make up the work, but must be paid for that work.
The next hearing date is March 7 th . I will be meeting with David Wright, our counsel, later this month to prepare for that hearing date. I can tell you that our evidence went in very well with excellent witnesses. We are in good position, and the delaying tactics of the colleges, the preference to litigate rather than deal with the substantive claims, is frustrating to all of us, as I am sure it must be to the members with outstanding claims.
Ted Montgomery, Negotiating Team Chair
