Full Details of SFU’s unbinding arbitration proposal and analysis

Below are links to documents regarding Vince Ready’s proposal for binding arbitration between the parties. The 4th document contains SFU’s proposed process along with analysis from the TSSU Contract Committee.

  1. Vince Ready’s proposal on binding arbitration
  2. TSSU’s proposal of September 24, 2015
  3. SFU Proposal of September 29, 2015
  4. Point by Point analysis of SFU Proposal of September 29, 2015

On September 24th, TSSU’s Contract Committee outlined a pathway SFU Admin could take that would allow us to have confidence recommending our members accept binding arbitration (Final Offer Selection or FOS), as per Vince Ready’s proposal of September 14. In response, SFU Administration has developed their own proposed process for binding arbitration which is in complete disagreement with the Vince Ready proposal. Incredibly, their proposal allows SFU Administration to “void” the results of the binding arbitration, if SFU Admin’s offer isn’t selected. The full contract committee analysis is linked above, but here are several highlights of our concerns about SFU Admin’s proposal:

  1. In clause #1, their proposal ignores TSSU’s democratic structure which requires our members vote on accepting binding arbitration.
  2. In clause #2, their proposal requires all changes to the contract to be costed as part of the PSEC mandate (a monetary cap), including items normally excluded from the mandate, such as complying with Health and Safety Law by paying TSSU members who sit on Safety Committees. Bringing an employer in line with the law is not supposed to be a cost which the employees pay for with a reduced wage increase. Clause #2 also requires the Arbitrator to do the costing, completely ignoring established practice where the parties (TSSU & SFU Admin / PSEC) present their costing to the Arbitrator who then makes a selection.
  3. In clause #3, their proposal requires a “total package” binding arbitration, rather than a proposal by proposal process. Vince Ready purposefully chose not to preset the type of binding arbitration and instead said he would choose the type of arbitration when he saw the final packages from the parties.
  4. In clause #4 SFU Admin’s proposal gives them a way to undo the binding arbitration if they do not like Vince Ready’s selection. They can simply appeal to PSEC who will overturn Vince Ready’s selection. In this case, TSSU would be without a collective agreement and would have to take another strike vote, recommence job action and restart the bargaining process.

TSSU Members are invited to come and discuss both proposals for binding arbitration at the Greater Committee Meeting
Tuesday October 6
AQ 5007

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *