Labour Management Committee


This page contains all of the updates from the UWFA/University of Winnipeg Labour Management Committee.

Labour Management Committee Terms of Reference

Minutes from UWFA (Main Unit) Labour/Management Meeting

2009-2010

  • February 2, 2010
  • March 2, 2010
  • March 16, 2010

2008-2009

MEMO

TO: Lloyd Axworthy, Bill Balan, Michael Benarroch, James Christie, Elizabeth Dawes, David Fitzpatrick, Valerie Gilroy, Rod Hanley, Dan Hurley, Randy Kobes, Ken McCluskey, Marilou McPhedran, Michael Mehta, Jennifer Rattray, Laurel Repski, Laura Sokal, Brian Stevenson

FROM: The Labour Management Committee

DATE: November 28, 2008
_______________________________________________________________________

Article 4 of the new Main Unit UWFA Collective Agreement mandates the creation of a Labour-Management Committee (LMC), the purpose of which is to review matters of concern from either the Association or the Employer arising from the application of the Collective Agreement, other than those matters that are the subject of grievance. It does not have the power to add to or modify the terms of this Agreement (i.e. amend contract language), as its focus is to clarify issues of interpretation of the existing language, and/or to undertake specific work that arises from collective bargaining, such as the establishment and/or updating of new forms, studying issues related to flexible retirement etc..The LMC is a standing committee that replaces the old issue-specific Joint Consultative Committees, and both parties have undertaken to work diligently to resolve both existing identified issues, and also new issues as they arise. Employer representatives Neil Besner, Geri Wensel, and Laura Sokal, along with UWFA representatives David Burley, Kristine Hansen, and Lisa McGifford, met for the first time on November 14 to devise a work plan and begin discussions. Employer representative Laurel Repski will in future meetings replace Geri Wensel.
We considered the question of 2009 – 2010 course releases for this year’s new tenure-track hires, who will be in their second year of employment next year. Although both the old and the new collective agreements specify that second-year releases are at the discretion of the Deans, in recent years the granting of such releases has been widespread. However, in the current round of staffing, releases have not been approved for some faculty members who were expecting to receive them. In the interest of fairness, the LMC agreed that all tenure-track faculty who are in their second year in 2009-2010 will receive course releases for that year. However, commencing with new hires who are first employed in 2009 – 2010, second-year course releases will not occur automatically, but rather will be at the Deans’ discretion, as specified in the Collective Agreement. We are pleased that we were able to resolve this issue cooperatively and to the satisfaction of both parties, and we hope this agreement will set the tone for the LMC’s future work.
At the November 14 meeting, we also began establishing two major LMC subcommittees on course evaluation development and on employment equity, and we made a start on several other issues. We will be meeting every two weeks to continue our work. Periodically, we will report our progress to you.
cc Kristine Hansen, Gerald Munt

MEMO

TO: Michael Benarroch, James Christie, David Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth Dawes, Rod Hanley, Randy Kobes, Ken McCluskey, Laura Sokal

FROM: Neil Besner, Office of the Deputy Provost and AVP International, on behalf of the Labour Management Committee

DATE: December 2, 2008

RE: Workload
_______________________________________________________________________

The implementation of the new 2.5 FCE teaching load will require the development of new strategies to maintain, as much as possible, current levels of student enrolment. As a result, consultations between the Deans and Department Chairs have been initiated to increase course capacities in ways that least compromise pedagogical objectives. The Labour / Management Committee recognizes that one of the most effective and least harmful way to this end may well result in higher enrolment ceilings at some levels of course offerings. In the short term, this adjustment could result in some faculty members experiencing a greater increase in their course enrolments than other faculty members. However, the committee expects that no faculty member will experience an increase in total course enrolments under a 2.5 FCE teaching load above what has been their norm under the 3.0 FCE teaching load, after institutional enrolment projections are taken into account. The Labour/Management Committee expects that over time Deans and Chairs will assign the responsibility for teaching high enrolment courses equitably, so that all faculty members will assume comparable teaching loads and that no group of faculty members will have a disproportionate responsibility for teaching such large courses.
cc Kristine Hansen, Brian Stevenson

2.5 FCE Teaching Load – A message from Staff Officer, Lisa McGifford – December 3, 2008:

“The implementation of the new 2.5 FCE teaching load will require the development of new strategies to maintain, as much as possible, current levels of student enrolment. As a result, consultations between the Deans and Department Chairs have been initiated to increase course capacities in ways that least compromise pedagogical objectives. The Labour / Management Committee recognizes that one of the most effective and least harmful way to this end may well result in higher enrolment ceilings at some levels of course offerings. In the short term, this adjustment could result in some faculty members experiencing a greater increase in their course enrolments than other faculty members. However, the committee expects that no faculty member will experience an increase in total course enrolments under a 2.5 FCE teaching load above what has been their norm under the 3.0 FCE teaching load, after institutional enrolment projections are taken into account. The Labour / Management Committee expects that over time Deans and Chairs will assign the responsibility for teaching high enrolment courses equitably, so that all faculty members will assume comparable teaching loads and that no group of faculty members will have a disproportionate responsibility for teaching such large courses.”