WHAT'S NEW?

THE NASA CONTRACT

REP'S COUNCIL

ABOUT NASA

TRUST TOPICS

UNION COMMITTEES AND REPORTS

SOLIDARITY!

SITE INDEX

CONTACT US

Last updated: 02/26/99

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.