Our members have been constantly bemoaning the state of our campus – untidy, unclean, unhealthy, unsanitary, in a state of disrepair, unsafe, scary, uncomfortable, dangerous, assigned rooms that are unsuitable for classes taught, malfunctioning equipment, obsolete equipment.
During the negotiating committee’s preparation for bargaining, TFA members’ feelings of physical insecurity on campus and the unhygienic and slovenly nature of our campus, as well as the inadequacy of much of the equipment and teaching environment were raised with a resounding regularity.
Within our current Collective Agreement this issue is already addressed in general terms in Article 7, Obligations. 7.2A currently states the following:
A. The Board acknowledges the primary responsibility of providing an administrative structure and climate in which effective teaching and Scholarly, Research and Creative activities may take place. The Board further acknowledges the desirability of a suitable physical environment for faculty members.
Despite this language within our Collective Agreement, to date, the Administration has not been sufficiently persuaded by their obligation to provide a suitable physical environment for faculty members.
Consequently, during negotiations the TFA proposed the addition of the following sentence to Article 7.2A above:
In addition to providing appropriate working conditions and equipment this includes an obligation to maintain appropriate standards of safety, security, cleanliness and hygiene across the campus.
At the bargaining table the Administration rejected this proposal. The Administration stated that the law (The Occupational Health and Safety Act) required them to maintain adequate standards of health and safety, and therefore there was no need for the introduction of the proposed language. They stated that if members were dissatisfied with the standards of health and safety on the campus they, or the TFA, could access the channels provided by the Ministry of Labour, which included submitting the matter to the TMU Joint Health and Safety Committee.
The TFA subsequently included this proposal in their submission to Arbitrator Kaplan. The text of this rationale provided to Arbitrator Kaplan in support of this proposal, can be found HERE.
The rationale includes descriptions and examples of concerns with: personal and community safety; cleanliness and hygiene in washrooms, classrooms, instructional spaces, offices, as well as general concerns with common areas across the campus; inappropriate environments for teaching and learning.
Within the submitted rationale, several examples of each of the above concerns are provided, and specific locations on campus are identified. There are also descriptions of members’ experiences and lack of response, or delays in response, when complaints and reports were submitted. It was pointed out to the arbitrator that, in order to ensure that the Administration takes appropriate steps to rectify the serious conditions described by the TFA members, it is necessary for the Collective Agreement to be amended to include reference to specific obligations to maintain reasonable standards of safety, security, cleanliness and hygiene.
The TFA further noted that, contrary to the position taken by the employer at the bargaining table, many of the unhygienic and unhealthy circumstances reported by TFA members – such as the presence of bloody tissues, excrement, urine, etc. – are not amenable to a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. TFA members ought, however, to be able to grieve a failure by the Employer to meet the most basic standards of a functional, clean, and safe work environment. Hence the need for the proposed specific references in the Collective Agreement.
The Administration’s written response to Arbitrator Kaplan, in response to the TFA submission, once again sought the rejection of the TFA proposal. They stated that the University recognised its responsibility to provide a safe workplace under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. They wrote that the University, as a result of this responsibility, has taken every reasonable precaution to protect its employees, including providing adequate facilities and responding to reports of unsafe or inadequate working conditions.
They repeated that this obligation exists regardless of the Collective Agreement, and that as a result there is no need to amend the Collective Agreement. They also stated that, notwithstanding their position that no such grievance would be successful, an avenue does already exist for TFA members to raise these complaints through the grievance and arbitration process.
Unfortunately, this was one of several items that Arbitrator Kaplan chose not to address. Consequently, our Administration appears emboldened to continue maintaining the slovenly status quo.
The text of the rationale for the proposal on Article 7 Obligations can be read here.