NASA held a Joint Forum on Saturday June 7, 1997 on the
topic of establishing Stewards for the Association. Twelve
members participated in this all-day workshop. J. Wever, NASA
manager, was also present. Representatives from AUPE, CAW, and
CUPE spoke at the event and were available as resource persons in
the small group sessions. These notes represent a collection of
the contributions made at the small groups which were merged and
then endorsed at a plenary session (This report was prepared by
the Joint Forum Chair, Peter Matilainen
/ June 10, 1997).
The basic question was posed to the participants: Should we
have stewards? Based on their experience in NASA and what was
presented by the speakers at this forum, there was broad
consensus that NASA did need stewards and that we are an
exception to most employee organization in that we don't have
such a front-line representation system here at the U of A.
While the forum agreed that we wanted a steward system, a
major concern that came up a number of times was whether any
future NASA stewards could succeed if it wasn't enforceable
through the Collective Agreement (C.A.). It was noted, for
instance, that current policy did not oblige management to
provide voice for our representatives at initial stages of the
grievance procedure. Given the urgency -- discussions with
management were being carried out on NASA's behalf on such
matters at this time -- the participants wanted to send a clear
message to our negotiators immediately. The following position
was proposed and passed unanimously on the principle of
"right to representation":
"NASA representatives must have the right to represent
the union in the workplace and the time to investigate and
provide representation (with pay) on any work-related
concerns."
VISION
An overall vision of the role of stewards for NASA was
developed as a starting point:
- Having stewards placed someone directly in the workplace
for the union and encourage more confidence/pride among
members for a strong union speaking for them.
- Stewards provided onsite resources for the membership;
such expertise included knowledge about the contract and
relevant university policies that affect
employees.
- They provided liaison with the union for the membership
as well as liasion withmanagement (as frontline support).
- Stewards could, through their intervention, solve small
problems before they became big problems (that drove up
costs with lawyers, etc.).
- And finally, stewards could provide links between
members, draw them together, and develop a greater unity.
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
The reason why the Bargaining Team was asked not to move ahead
to negotiate issues like representation and stewards was
specifically because this Joint Forum was being held to provide
recommendations. Unfortunately, no NASA members on the Bargaining
Team attended the Joint Forum. However, there were quite a few
from the Focus Group and it was agreed they would bring forward
the results to the membership and into the bargaining process.
The small groups session brought out a number of items that
should be included in any collective agreement that our
Bargaining Team accepts:
Recognition
- Recognition of Stewards; not only the right to have them
but the obligation of management to recognize their role
in the workplace. We have to bargain for these positions
and make sure they are clearly set out in the C.A.
- There should be a clause in the C.A. that establishes
that there will be no discrimination of activists on the
basis of their work for the union. Without this type of
statement, some members may feel at risk to participate
as frontline stewards.
- Communication is a key component for any union's ability
to act on behalf of their members and to give members
access to their union. C.A. language needs to recognize
the right to access university "property" such
as fax, campus mail, and email for union business. It
also must be tightened up on establishing and maintaining
distinct Union Bulletin Boards (separate, appropriately
located).
Distribution
- We recognize that, practically speaking, stewards have to
be positioned amongst the membership in some fashion. The
C.A. has to recognize the need for adequate
representation.
- However, it would be the Union's responsibility to decide
on how this is done. For instance, the areas of
representation established by NASA would be accomplished
through a process described as "workplace
mapping". That is, stewards could be located by
department, by buildings, by seniority units, or by a
combination of these categories. What is clear is that
the members themselves would decide how their
"group" would be configured.
- We also noted that the system should not allow members to
shop around their grievances to different stewards (to
get the best deal). But, wherever possible, members
should have the opportunity to select who they feel most
comfortable discussing issuse and/or represent them in
any formal process, and an effective appeal process.
- If stewards are to be effective for the membership they
need to be able to address any and all issues affecting
members of the Bargaining Unit (Workers' Compensation
Board, Employment Insurance, Employee Assistance Program,
even some personal issues that might be affecting their
work). The employer has to recognize the steward's right
to be involved in finding a fair resolution or to inform
members. The Workshop participants recommend that NASA's
negotiators get "model language" from other
unions on this issue.
Paid Time Off
When a steward is involved in helping the membership, time off
with pay to do that job is normal practice in the rest of the
labour movement:
- Stewards need paid time off for: handling the grievance,
doing the research necessary for those cases, making
presentations to management, or involvement taking it to
arbitration hearings
- It may become practical to establish the position of
Chief Steward, and consider making it a part- or
full-time paid position working directly from the NASA
office.
- Not only stewards but all members who are involved in
maintaining the union, may require time off at one point
or another. For that purpose, NASA must seek better
contract language on "paid Union leave" (i.e.,
grievances, council, training, conventions, meetings,
conferences). Such items appear in other unions contracts
and can include limits that capp its use based on total
hours for all members, maximum hours/member, or a
percentage per department.
- In those cases where members take such time off, we
should expect that the university has made a good faith
effort to find replacements to do the work while they're
away. Without such a provision it can discourage members
from fully participating when they know all that
work/overtime will be waiting for them when they get
back. Such C.A. language must also be considered.
- It should be understood, as a principle, that service on
behalf of members improves management/labour relations
and we should seek C.A. language to have management pay
for this. However, there may be certain situations where
the University may not be willing to pay for time off
and/or it may not be included in the C.A. In order to
address those cases -- where such time off by a member is
endorsed as union business by an appropriate body/chair
-- the union will seek contract language that provides
the member with a continuance (i.e. their paycheque will
be as normal) and the union will reimburse the
University, thereby not compromise the members'
pensionable earnings.
Grievance Handling
- A key demand is that the C.A. require mandatory union
participation in any disciplinary procedure. Clauses that
suggest that the "employee has the right to..."
request such involvement, allow situations where an
individual member may feel pressured not to involve the
union, or may not even be aware of the union's
responsibility in defending them. In effect, such a
clause would state that, if the union is not present, any
discpline should be made void. Once again, other unions
have achieved this basic level of union recognition in
their contracts.
- As a general policy, NASA shouldn't accept specific
written discipline in the C.A. (i.e. three incidents =
firing for a particular offense). The Union and
management both require flexibility to negotiate what is
an appropriate response to a situation on a case-by-case
basis.
- As a general policy, NASA should seek the longest
timelines for permitting the union to prepare a member's
case in the grievance process. At the same time, it
should be incumbent that disciplinary action by
management has to be implemented in a shortest minimum
period.
- Regarding personnel records, stewards, authorized to
handle a particular case for members, must have access to
the relevant personnel files. The length during which
relevant disciplinary information in such files are
retained by management should also be for the shortest
possible period and "clearing" of those files
should be done automatically and not require the employee
to request such action.
BYLAWS
We also gave some consideration to what changes would be
required to NASA's operations policies and bylaws. An initial
recommendation, to avoid re-inventing the wheel, was that NASA
obtain copies of bylaws from other unions. This would allow us to
"copy" the best/most suitable language to match our
requirements (larger unions have both master/national and local
constitutions). As to specific bylaw proposals we came up with
the following:
- Place roles and responsibilities of stewards in the
actual bylaws.
- Establish direct-contact mechanisms for selecting
stewards (i.e., no more mail ballots - select stewards by
polling booths or area meetings).
- Establish qualifications for stewards (the principles,
not the nitty-gritty details which should properly appear
in an adopted NASA "policy").
- Create the position of Chief Steward on the Executive who
will report to the Executive (likely convert the current
position of Grievance Chair).
- Recognize that those members involved in union-directed
work would not lose income for that activity (i.e.,
expenses paid).
- The Executive (which is supposed be focused on day-to-day
overall NASA operations) should not dominate the
Bargaining Team as is currently the case; other unions
normally separate these two central tasks and don't load
all that responsibility on one small body.
- Instead, we should look for ways to enhance what is a
logical relationship between those who bargain for us and
those who deal with the day-to-day grievances when it
comes to contract negotiations (i.e, the stewards).
- Membership bodies that direct our negotiations (currently
Bargaining Team/Focus Group) should be structured so they
are representative of workers by sites, occupations, and
needs, not the current process of weighting it on the
Executive.
- We should consider maintaining these negotiating bodies
on a year-round basis so that, in those instances where
there may be a dispute, we'll have someone there who can
point out that "When we negotiated, you [management]
told us this is what that clause meant but now you're
reneging...."
These are proposals from those who participated in the small
groups during the Joint Forum. Following from our current bylaws,
the Forum is asking the Bylaw Chair to help develop the
appropriate changes that would be required in the current bylaws
to meet these recommendations.
WHAT'S NEXT?
The Joint Forum (JF) did it's work. We sat in meeting rooms on
what turned out to be a very nice sunny Saturday (!) and listened
to speakers, asked questions, did our own readings, discussed
ideas in small groups, and prepared these proposals. However, it
doesn't end there. Who will take these to the next step and get
them implemented? Accountability and ownership will be best
served by identifying which bodies are responsible for what
should be done next. Quite obviously, the most immediate priority
is in the area of bargaining and getting proposals -- if approved
by the AGM -- to the bargaining table. The JF has delegated this
task to the FOCUS GROUP.
The experience of the JF participants certainly convinced them
of the benefits of NASA having stewards. What needs to be done
now is to explain what stewards can do to improve things for the
membership, to identify problems that members face (ie., through
one-on-one contact, surveys, information meetings) and
demonstrate how, in many cases, stewards are a part of the
solution.
Campaigns don't have to be limited to organizing and holding
courses or meetings. It can and should also involve written
information sent out or even placed online. Once a steward system
is approved and working -- as each steward is trained -- they can
bring the information personally to the membership. This form of
organizing in the workplace develops alternative forms of
communication and meeting members. We can work to build even
broader links through "workplace contacts" -- members
who might be unprepared to be a steward but who will keep in
regular touch with NASA.
If and when the policy proposal is adopted by a General
Meeting, NASA needs to go into a "campaign mode" to
recruit stewards to go along with the new C.A. This, it was
suggested, will likely not happen through a wave of volunteers
but will probably be more of ones and twos that might include
current Reps on Council, members of the Grievance Committee,
other NASA committee volunteers, and even members who may see
that NASA has begun to get serious about representing its members
with stewards in the workplace. There are likely members on
campus who have been stewards in other unions. We can draw upon
that expertise in our membership.
And, as one guest speaker suggested, there are lots of
educational resources in the broader union movement that NASA can
access in order to build both a membership education program and
a steward systems.
To start this "education process", the JF is
delegating the initial education campaigning to REPS COUNCIL and
the GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE.
As mentioned earlier, the JF is also asking the BYLAWS CHAIR
to prepare appropriate wording for our bylaws on the relevant
issues that were raised in this report. This should be done in
consultation with the GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE.