Council
|
Bargaining 2000 () |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NASA Committees and Reports Chief Electoral Officer
Last updated: 03/18/01 |
This page archives the
updates circulated to NASA members during our last round of negotiations for Trust and
Operating. The Focus Group normally met on Mondays at noon for updates on
negotiations and advised our negotiating team. If you are interested in joining the Focus
Group, please contact the FG Chair, Joy Correia.
We need representatives for members from all the areas of the university. (You might want to Bookmark this particular page so
you can reach it directly in the future) November 17, 2000To: All NASA Members From: The NASA Negotiating Team RE: Memorandum of Settlement dated November 15, 2000 Well, it has been a long time coming. However, the negotiating committee is pleased to report to you that a new contract has been reached, subject to the members’ ratification on November 29, 2000. No contract has everything we had hoped for. However, we have accomplished significant achievements. One of the goals of the committee was to bring the provisions of trust and operating closer to identical wording and rights. We have made progress in that direction. The most significant feature here is the combined recall list of laid off trust and operating members. We believe that this change will bring our members back to work faster, while retaining an operating employee’s right to return to an operating job, even though they may have been temporarily returned to a trust position. For the trust employees, a major accomplishment is the onus on the Trustholders to have all positions evaluated if they have not been done in the last two years. Although this may cause some concern, both Human Resource Services and NASA are committed to resolving any concerns that may arise as a result of re-grading. However, the process of having all positions evaluated and judged according to the equity policies of the University is long overdue. For part-time employees, they will be entitled to the full dental benefits provided to full-time employees, effective April 1, 2001. The new requirement to post all vacant operating positions will enhance the job opportunities for all NASA members. Internal candidates must be considered for these positions. Both committees believe this provision will assist in career development and retention of experienced staff on campus and heighten morale by recognizing the University’s commitment to existing staff. These are a few of the changes you will find in the proposed contract; not to mention the increase in salary of 4% retroactive to April 1, 2000 and an additional 4% added to the new rates on April 1, 2001. The attached document outlines the changes to the current collective agreement. The negotiating committee will be meeting with the Focus Group to prepare an evaluation of this round of bargaining and make proposals to the Executive and members on how to improve the process. In the meantime:
Summary of Contract Changes in the Tentative ContractThere have been minor changes made to virtually all articles of the collective agreement, in both Parts A and B. The following will detail the more substantive changes that have been made. PART A – Operating Article 2 – Employee Types This article has been reorganized so that there are only two types of employees: regular and temporary (there are still different types of temporary employees). Temporary Employees Apprentices Interim Staffing Solutions (ISS) Employees Casual Employees Article 3 – Union Recognition We now have an actual union recognition clause. This prevents the Employer from imposing special deals on employees (this was particularly important given the disruption of the former AIS employees). Article 4 – Union Representation The Employer has committed to a greater recognition of the union steward program and, in particular, working with the stewards at the job site to resolve issues (this is important for ensuring a positive labour relations environment). Article 6 – Safety, Wearing Apparel and Tools Health and Safety Officers on campus have been given the authority to shut down unsafe workplaces (a direct result of discussions during bargaining). Students will be oriented to established health and safety practices to promote the safety of our members. Outside contractors will be required to be fully compliant with the University’s health and safety practices. Also, where employees are exposed to dangerous substances, they will be immediately notified, given information regarding potential medical conditions and long-term effects, and records will be kept in the event of future illness. The Director of Health & Safety will immediately notify the Union of any serious accident, injury or incident that could have caused significant injury to a NASA member. Current employees who are required, as a result of a designation, to wear CSA protective footwear will receive $100 upon signing of the contract and $12 per month thereafter to pay for the required footwear. In other areas, until a designation has been made, the existing payments will continue. Temporaries under 12 will receive $12 per month until they reach the 13th month, at which time they will get $100. The Director of Health & Safety is required to determine whether any protective apparel or footwear is required. If required, it must be provided and replaced when necessary. Article 7 – Health, Safety & Labour/Management Committee We have established a Joint Health & Safety Committee, which provides NASA with the opportunity to speak directly to senior management regarding NASA members’ health and safety concerns. It gives us the opportunity to coordinate the safety concerns on campus and have them addressed at a meaningful level. Article 9 – Hours of Work The language has been revised so that any work schedule that differs from a regular work schedule must have a written Union approved agreement. This will ensure that from now on any such schedule will meet the terms of the collective agreement. Once such an agreement is reached, mutual agreement will be required to change it. In addition, all existing situations are to be reviewed and a written agreement reached; in the meantime, those situations are protected from change until such an agreement is achieved. Article 8 – Probation We have clarified that there is only one probationary period and a temporary employee serves it in their first six months. In addition, there is no requirement to repeat a probationary period when an employee moves from a trust to operating position or from a temporary to regular position. Article 10 – Shift Differential Employees working 12-hour shifts will be entitled to receive shift differential for all hours worked between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Article 11 – Overtime Except in cases of emergency, overtime is voluntary. Article 14 – Salaries Salaries will be increased effective April 1, 2000, by 4% and by an additional 4% on April 1, 2001. We have determined that the increase will be applied to the hourly rates. The new monthly rates will be a direct calculation based on annual hours divided by 12. The adjustment to salary of the 4% increase will be applied beginning January 1, 2001. The increase is retroactive to April 1, 2001, and the retroactive money (i.e. from April 1 to December 31, 2000) will be paid not later than February 28, 2001. Current and future Power Plant and Cooling Plant Operator IIs will receive accelerated increments – one every six months to a maximum of Step 7; any additional time counts towards the next LSI. This is a supplement to address retention issues. Article 15 – Performance Reviews and Increments The most significant change here is the agreement that performance management needs to be improved through a continuous two-way process of communication that benefits both the employee and the employer. We expect that performance reviews will become more accurate and the focus will be on enhancing job skills. Withholding of increments is now specifically identified as a disciplinary action and is now clearly a grievable matter. Article 16 – Premiums With respect to Market Supplements, if no agreement can be reached between the Union and the Employer, the Employer can no longer unilaterally impose a supplement. In addition, the dispute will go to a formal arbitration board. Responsibility Pay has been revised and moved to new Article 21. Article 18 – Service Service will now be calculated from the first day of hire. A temporary employee under 12 will only forfeit their service during their first year of employment at the University if they voluntarily change their employing department. In addition, service is now transferable when a person moves from a trust to an operating position or vice versa. Service will now be accumulated while a person is on Long Term Disability leave. Article 19 – Seniority The seniority units (Appendix E) have been amended to reflect the new seniority units. Article 20 – Position Disruption The Article has been re-written for clarity. The emphasis is to make every reasonable attempt to avoid position elimination and layoff by ensuring that there is meaningful discussion between the potentially affected employees, the Union and the Employer before any action is taken. This includes discussion with employees other than those who may potentially be disrupted to try to problem-solve within the seniority unit to minimize negative impacts. The process is now more transparent with the removal of the secrecy provisions imposed on the Union. A clause has been added which requires 14 days of notice in case of layoffs of less than three months. There will now be two recall lists: one covering all full-time employees, both trust and operating; and one covering all part-time employees, both trust and operating. Operating employees retain their rights to recall until they have been placed in a position at their former status and grade as operating employees or 24 months, whichever comes first. Operating employees may be recalled to trust positions; however, such recall will be viewed as a temporary placement and will not affect their right to recall. Article 21 – Postings, Transfers, Promotions and Responsibility Pay All regular positions on campus will now be posted and internal applicants must be given consideration. When an employee is promoted, their new base pay can be more than one full increment above their current base pay. Provisions for temporary promotions and transfers (formerly referred to as "secondments") have been clearly outlined in this article and an affected employee must be provided with their terms and conditions in writing. The employee has the right to return to their original job. Their service and seniority will continue as if they were in their original position. They will be paid a premium of 5% of their base pay or the minimum base pay for the position, whichever is greater. Where the position is outside the NASA bargaining unit, they will be paid a premium of no less than 10% of their base pay. Finally, there will be no change to increment dates on return to their position. Article 23 – Annual Vacation An employee who is working part-time as a result of an illness or rehabilitation will accrue vacation credits on a pro-rated basis. Article 24 – Illness and Proof of Illness For absences of three days or more, medical certificates are to be provided to the Employer with a copy to Health Recovery Support Unit. For absences of more than ten days, medical certificates go directly to the Health Recovery Support Unit. In a medical board situation, an employee now has the ability to identify a doctor of their choice to sit on the board. Article 26 – Special Leave Where an employee uses the maximum entitlement of special leave in a year, they will be provided with additional compassionate leave if needed. Article 27 – Witness or Jury Duty A shift worker called for witness or jury duty will be granted leave with pay for an equivalent number of scheduled shifts during the duty period. Article 28 – Maternity and Parental Leave This article has been up-dated to reflect the new federal regulations. The provisions now include: maternity leave up to 17 weeks; parental leave up to 37 weeks for either parent; if both parents are employees of the University, both can take advantage of the parental leave. Temporary employees under 12 months will be entitled to apply their unused illness entitlement to the illness portion of their maternity leave. Article 31 – Benefits Plans A new dental fee guide was approved. The cap on prescription drug dispensing fees will be lifted effective January 1, 2001. Effective April 1, 2001, part-time employees are entitled to receive the same dental benefits as full-time employees. The LTD benefit maximum cap has been removed. The Employer can no longer automatically terminate an employee after 24 months on LTD. The Employer must consider the employee’s capability of returning to some form of work. NASA must be consulted on any changes to the carriers of the benefits plans. No changes to the plans themselves can be made without mutual agreement. Article 33 – Human Resources Development Fund Effective April 1, 2001, the fund has been increased to $400,000 per year, from $300,000. Individual entitlements increase for regular employees to $750 (from $500) and for temporary and part-time employees to $500 (from $250). Future years entitlements may be combined to a maximum of $2,250 when a specific program of studies has been approved. The Fund can now be used for non-credit University of Alberta courses designed to enhance employee wellness (e.g. physical education or stress management). Article 36 – Discipline The Employer must now follow a particular course of action with respect to discipline. The length of time a disciplinary document can remain on a person’s file has been reduced from 36 months to 24 months. Article 38 – Dispute Resolution Process This process has been re-written with a view to attempting to resolve differences between the parties as soon as possible and to involve administrators who have the authority to make a decision. Article 39 – Job Evaluation If a position is re-evaluated to a higher grade, the incumbent will get a raise and the performance increment date will not be affected. As well, the restriction to a raise of one increment has been removed. Article 43 – Discrimination and Harassment Complaints A ‘no discrimination’ clause has been added to this article. As a result, the issue of accommodating injured or ill workers can now be dealt with as an issue of discrimination on the basis of a disability. The remainder of this article is still under construction and will be added to the contract when it is concluded. Article 44 – Term of Agreement This contract will expire on March 31, 2002. Appendix G – Letter of Understanding – Contracting Out The Employer will now consult with NASA where there is an expectation that layoffs will occur. Appendix I – Memorandum of Agreement – Service This appendix has been deleted – the issue has been addressed in Articles 2 and 18. Appendix L – Memorandum of Agreement – Electronic Monitoring This appendix has been deleted as the matter has been referred to the Health, Safety & Labour/ Management Committee. Appendix M – Letter of Intent: Definition of Employee Types This appendix has been deleted as the matter has been addressed in Articles 2 and 18. Appendix O – Memorandum of Agreement – Exclusions This appendix has been deleted as it is no longer necessary. Appendix Q – Letter of Intent – Article 6 – Safety This appendix has been deleted – the issue has been addressed in the new wording of Article 6. Appendix S – Memorandum of Agreement – Salaries This appendix has been deleted as it is no longer necessary. Appendix T – Letter of Agreement – General Trust Support Employees This appendix has been deleted as it is no longer necessary. Appendix M – NEW – Memorandum of Understanding – Benefits Committees This appendix contains provisions for the operation of the current Benefits Advisory and Disability Management Committees. Appendix O – NEW – Letter of Understanding – Early Retirement Bonus Program A $50,000 early retirement bonus fund has been established. This is intended to provide a retirement bonus of up to 25 days pay for either operating employees between the ages of 50 and 55 or trust employees between the ages of 50 and 65 (new). To qualify, an employee must have five years of service and the department must agree. Appendix Q – NEW – Contract Wording Committee We’ve agreed to work together with the Employer to improve the language of the collective agreement. A document will be created and forwarded to the next bargaining committee with recommendations for wording improvements. This ‘common language’ document may be used as a guide to interpret this new collective agreement as it is not intended to change the intent of the language.
PART B – TrustArticle 1 – Definitions The significant change in this article relates to the definition of "continuous employment". The conditions that cause a break in service include: voluntary resignation, dismissal for just cause, failure to return to work from an approved leave of absence, failure to return to work within 10 work days of receipt of recall notice, layoff of more than 24 consecutive calendar months, or a break in employment of more than three months. The most significant change is that an employee’s continuous employment is no longer broken when they change Trustholders after their initial 12 months of employment with the first Trustholder. Operating employees may transfer to Trust without a break in continuous employment; Trust employees may transfer to Operating without causing a break in service. Article 2 – Inclusions/Exclusions Resolution Process There has been no change to the current article. However, the question of whether research associates are in NASA’s bargaining unit will be dealt with by the Board of Governors. If the Board does not designate research associates as academics (therefore becoming AAS:UA members), then an application will be made to the Labour Relations Board for a confirmation that research associates are in NASA’s bargaining unit. If the Labour Relations Board decides in our favour, then negotiations will commence to amend any portion of Part B (Trust Agreement) that may be required. Articles 3 – 6 See earlier comments under Part A (Operating) Article 7 – Probation See comments under Article 8 – Part A (Operating). Article 8 – Hours of Work Employees who are scheduled to work for more than four hours are entitled to a ½ hour unpaid rest period. Article 9 – Overtime Except in cases of emergency, overtime is voluntary. Article 11 – Winter Closure Days There has been an addition to the article to incorporate modified work schedules. Article 12 – Vacation After 23 years of employment, employees will be entitled to six weeks vacation. Article 13 – Illness and Proof of Illness See comments under Article 24 – Part A (Operating) Article 14 – Leave This article has been reorganized into four separate articles that have yet to be renumbered: Compassionate Leave, Leave Without Pay, Maternity and Parental Leave and Witness or Jury Duty. Compassionate Leave – no change to the provisions. Leave Without Pay – now includes political leave and leave without pay for elected union officials. Maternity and Parental Leave – See comments under Article 28 – Part A (Operating) Note: The return to work provisions from the previous Trust Agreement have not changed in this article. Witness or Jury Duty – See comments under Article 27 – Part A (Operating) Article 15 – Performance Reviews and Increments See comments under Article 15 – Part A (Operating) Article 17 – Benefits There is no change to the cost sharing for part-time employees. However, the dental insurance plan for part-time employees will include the full basic and restorative services plan currently in place for full-time employees. See comments under Article 31 – Part A (Operating). Article 19 – Human Resources Development Fund See comments under Article 33 – Part A (Operating) Article 20 – Redeployment, Layoff, Notice/Recall There was no change to the current article with the exception of the requirement for the Trustholder to consult with the employees and NASA in an effort to minimize the negative impact on employees, up to and including avoiding layoffs. The emphasis is to make every reasonable attempt to avoid position elimination and layoff by ensuring that there is meaningful discussion between the potentially affected employees, the Union and the Employer before any action is taken. This includes discussion with employees other than those who may potentially be disrupted to try to problem-solve within the seniority unit to minimize negative impacts. There will now be two recall lists: one covering all full-time employees, both trust and operating; and one covering all part-time employees, both trust and operating. Trust employees retain their right to recall until they are recalled to a position of their former status and grade (either trust or operating) or 24 months, whichever comes first. Article 21 – Position Evaluation See comments under Article 39 – Part A (Operating). Article 23 – Discipline See comments under Article 36 – Part A (Operating). Article 26 – Dispute Resolution Process See comments under Article 38 – Part A (Operating). Article 27 – Discrimination and Harassment Complaints See comments under Article 43 – Part A (Operating). Article 28 – Salaries See comments under Article 14 – Part A (Operating) New Article – Health, Safety and Labour/Management Committee See comments under Article 7 – Part A (Operating) New Article – Premiums The second language premium of 5% will be applied to those who are required to be fluent in a second language. New Article – Promotions, Transfers and Responsibility Pay When an employee is promoted, their new base pay can be more than one full increment above their current base pay. Provisions for temporary promotions and transfers (formerly referred to as "secondments") have been clearly outlined in this article and an affected employee must be provided with their terms and conditions in writing. The employee has the right to return to their original job. Their service and seniority will continue as if they were in their original position. They will be paid a premium of 5% of their base pay or the minimum base pay for the position, whichever is greater. Where the position is out of scope, they will be paid a premium of no less than 10% of their base pay. Finally, there will be no change to increment dates on return to their position. We have also included a clause dealing with salary treatment on a permanent transfer. Appendix L (NEW ) – Letter of Understanding – Trust Employee Position Evaluations If your position has not been evaluated in the last two years, it will be. Within 30 days of ratification the Employer will notify each Trustholder of their responsibility to initiate a job evaluation, a copy of this letter will be provided to each trust employee and to NASA. Within 90 days of the ratification of this contract, the Employer will conduct at least one training session for all trust employees on how to complete job fact sheets. Any resulting salary adjustment will be effective on the date the job fact sheet is submitted to Human Resource Services. It is highly recommended that trust employees to whom this applies immediately begin to complete a job fact sheet, which may be downloaded from the Human Resource Services website! Appendix O – NEW – Memorandum of Understanding – Benefits Committees This appendix contains provisions for the operation of the current Benefits Advisory and Disability Management Committees. Appendix P – NEW – Letter of Understanding – Early Retirement Bonus Program A $50,000 early retirement bonus fund has been established. This is intended to provide a retirement bonus of up to 25 days pay for either operating employees between the ages of 50 and 55 or trust employees between the ages of 50 and 65. To qualify, an employee must have five years of service and the Trustholder must agree.
October 30, 2000NEGOTIATIONS UPDATENegotiations Progress Report - as of October 26, 2000Your Bargaining Committee has been working for forty-six days in an effort to conclude negotiations. Here is a comprehensive report of our progress. Although we had hoped to be able to report a complete settlement, we are not quite finished. Additional bargaining is scheduled for October 31 to November 3. We are all hopeful that a memorandum of settlement can be reached during that period. The Bargaining Committee is attempting to resolve the concerns of the members rather than rushing into a settlement. However, we hope to complete the contract soon. One of the major tasks for this round has been to clean up the agreement in order to make it more understandable and user-friendly. We believe that we have met this objective. Below are highlights of the progress we’ve made to date. Please note that until the Memorandum of Settlement has been signed, nothing is final! Agreements in PrincipleArticle 2 – Employee Types This article has been reorganized so that there are only two types of employees: regular and temporary (there are still different types of temporary employees). Service of temporaries will now be counted when they exceed 12 months, including granting an increment at the 12th month and full benefits. Also, when the Employer knows they are hiring a temporary for longer than 12 months, they can be hired as a temporary appointed for greater than 12 months right from day one and receive benefits at that time. We have resolved that ISS (formerly TSS) is part of the bargaining unit and represented by NASA. Article 3 – Union Recognition We now have an actual union recognition clause. This prevents the Employer from imposing special deals on employees (this was particularly important given the disruption of the former AIS employees). Article 4 – Union Representation The Employer has committed to a greater recognition of the union steward program and, in particular, working with the stewards at the job site to resolve issues (this is important for ensuring a positive labour relations environment). Article 6 – Safety, Wearing Apparel and Tools Health and Safety Officers on campus have been given the authority to shut down unsafe workplaces (a direct result of discussions during bargaining). Students will be oriented to established health and safety practices to promote the safety of our members. Outside contractors will be required to be fully compliant with the University’s health and safety practices. Also, where employees are exposed to dangerous substances, they will be immediately notified, given information regarding potential medical conditions and long-term effects, and records will be kept in the event of future illness. The Director of Health & Safety will immediately notify the Union of any serious accident, injury or incident that could have caused significant injury to a NASA member. Current employees who are required to wear CSA protective footwear will receive $100 upon signing of the contract and $12 per month thereafter to pay for the required footwear. Temporaries under 12 will receive $12 per month until they reach the 13th month, at which time they will get $100. The Director of Health & Safety is required to determine whether any protective apparel or footwear is required. If required, it must be provided and replaced when necessary. Article 7 – Health, Safety & Labour/Management Committee We have established a Joint Health & Safety Committee, which provides NASA with the opportunity to speak directly to senior management regarding NASA members’ health and safety concerns. It gives us the opportunity to coordinate the safety concerns on campus and have them addressed at a meaningful level. Article 8 – Probation We have clarified that there is only one probationary period and a temporary employee serves it in their first six months. In addition, there is no requirement to repeat a probationary period when an employee moves from a trust to operating position or from a temporary to regular position. Article 15 – Performance Reviews and Increments The most significant change here is the agreement that performance management needs to be improved through a continuous two-way process of communication that benefits both the employee and the employer. We expect that performance reviews will become more accurate and the focus will be on enhancing job skills. Withholding of increments is now specifically identified as a disciplinary action and is now clearly a grieveable matter. Article 18 – Service Service will now be calculated from the first day of hire. A temporary employee under 12 will only forfeit their service during their first year of employment at the University, if they voluntarily change their employing department. In addition, service is now transferable when a person moves from a trust to an operating position or vice versa. Article 20 – Position Disruption The Article has been re-written for clarity. The emphasis is to make every reasonable attempt to avoid position elimination and layoff by ensuring that there is meaningful discussion between the potentially affected employees, the Union and the Employer before any action is taken. This includes discussion with employees other than those who may potentially be disrupted to try to problem-solve within the seniority unit to minimize negative impacts. The process is now more transparent with the removal of the secrecy provisions imposed on the Union. Article 21 – Promotions, Transfers and Responsibility Pay The increment cap has been lifted during a promotion - the new base pay must be at least one full increment above the employee’s current base pay. Provisions for temporary promotions and transfers (formerly referred to as "secondments") have been clearly outlined in this article and an affected employee must be provided with their terms and conditions in writing. The employee has the right to return to their original job. Their service and seniority will continue as if they were in their original position. They will be paid a premium of 5% of their base pay or the minimum base pay for the position, whichever is greater. Where the position is out of scope, they will be paid a premium of no less than 10% of their base pay. Finally, there will be no change to increment dates on return to their position. Article 23 – Annual Vacation Trust employees will now receive the same provisions as Operating employees (current Article 12 of the Trust Agreement.) Article 26 – Special Leave Where an employee uses the maximum entitlement of special leave in a year, they will be provided with additional compassionate leave if needed Article 28 – Maternity and Parental Leave This article has been up-dated to reflect the new federal regulations. The provisions now include: maternity leave up to 12 months; parental leave up to 37 weeks in the case of the father; if both parents are employees of the University, both can take advantage of the leaves. Temporary employees under 12 months will be entitled to apply their unused illness entitlement to the illness portion of their maternity leave. Article 33 – Human Resources Development Fund The fund has been increased to $500,000 per year. Individual entitlements increase for regular employees to $750 (from $500) and for temporary employees to $500 (from $250). Future years entitlements may be combined to a maximum of $2,250 when a specific program of studies has been approved. Article 36 – Discipline The employer must now follow a particular course of action with respect to discipline. The length of time a disciplinary document can remain on a person’s file has been reduced from 36 months to 24 months. Article 39 – Job Evaluation If your position is re-evaluated to a higher grade, you will get a raise and your performance increment date will not be affected. Outstanding Issues
Monetary Issues
APPLICATION FOR TRUST EMPLOYEESWe are working towards fewer differences in the provisions between Part A and Part B of the Collective Agreement. The following table identifies areas where there may continue to be different provisions:
For Further Information contact your Union Steward, Council Representative, Joy Correia, Focus Chair, 3623, joy.correia@ualberta.ca , or Barbara Surdykowski, Business Manager, 439-3181, barbara.surdykowski@ualberta.ca October 3, 2000NEGOTIATIONS UPDATEPROGRESS CONTINUES AT THE TABLEThe following highlights some of the more significant areas that have been discussed or signed off during the past two weeks: Promotion
Temporary Promotions & Transfers (NEW)
Performance Increments
Leaves
Probation
HRDF
Bargaining will resume on October 10th for a further two-week period. The agenda includes the following: Paid Holidays, premiums for working Winter Closure, Annual Vacation and salary/premium increases. This session will also be important as we will begin with a discussion on service & seniority, employee types, and collective agreement application to those employee types. Look for a new Negotiations Update during the week of October 23, 2000. For Further Information contact your Union Steward, Council Representative, Joy Correia, Focus Chair, 3623, joy.correia@ualberta.ca or Barbara Surdykowski, Business Manager, 439-3181, barbara.surdykowski@ualberta.ca September 14, 2000NEGOTIATIONS UPDATEPROGRESS BEING MADE AT THE TABLEThe parties have signed off a number of articles and are close to signing off several others. The following highlights some of the more significant achievements: Union Recognition (NEW)
Union Steward
Health & Safety
Discipline
The next bargaining session is scheduled to run for two full weeks beginning Monday, September 18, 2000. The agenda for this session includes: Leaves of Absence (including new parental leave provisions); Grievance and Harassment procedures; discussion of the definitions of service, seniority and transfer between trust and operating positions; and the Job Evaluation System. Look for a new Negotiations Update during the week of October 2, 2000. For Further Information contact Joy Correia, Focus Chair, 3623, joy.correia@ualberta.ca
750 Extension Centre Email: nasa@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca April 18, 2000NEGOTIATIONS UPDATEBARGAINING RESUMES Following a second day of mediation on Tuesday, April 11th, your bargaining team decided to return to the table to continue their job of negotiating on your behalf for a new collective agreement. The bargaining team members were unanimous in their belief that the issues and concerns, which caused bargaining to come to a halt, have been addressed in a meaningful and concrete manner. At the end of the day, both parties agreed and signed off on twelve principles that will guide the relationship between NASA and the University, both during the bargaining process and during the period between collective agreements. Several key principles are:
On Thursday, April 13th bargaining resumed. The agenda for the regular bargaining schedule, of every Thursday and Friday, was determined and full bargaining will now resume following the Easter weekend. On April 27th the agenda items are: Preamble (a.m.) and Health & Safety (p.m.). On April 28th the agenda items are: Stewards and Union Representational Issues (a.m.) and Job Evaluation (p.m.). The Union has withdrawn the bargaining in bad faith complaint from the Labour Relations Board. In the meantime, with respect to AIS, the Union presented an alternative proposal to Glenn Harris on Wednesday, April 12th. While the final decision with respect to AIS lies with the Board of Governors, we firmly believe that the plan we have proposed is in the best interests of our members at AIS and the university as a whole. The Union is also pursuing policy grievances to ensure the rights of our members at AIS are protected. For Further Information contact Joy Correia, Focus Chair, 3623, joy.correia@ualberta.ca
750 Extension Centre Email: nasa@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca April 14, 2000NEGOTIATIONS UPDATENASA's Plan for IS (Information Systems)INTRODUCTIONIt is ironic that the University of Alberta should be considering outsourcing its entire Information Systems at a time that it is also aggressively marketing this University. It has been indicated by the President of the University that the "pursuit of excellence" does not just lie in the field of academia but also in all the support systems that exist in this University. It makes a great deal of sense to recognize that when prospective faculty and students are considering which university they will choose, they will examine not only strictly academic criteria but also examine the support systems in place and the opportunity to develop and disseminate academic knowledge. For example, a student will be interested in the ease of the registration process, the accessibility of records, the possibility of practical study on campus and the prospect of future employment both on a temporary and permanent basis. So what kind of message does the University of Alberta send when they outsource the entire Information System of the University? To the public the message appears to be: "We, a higher education institution with both management and computer technology faculties, cannot manage our own internal information system". To the faculty and students the message appears to be: "We, your employer, are giving total control over your records, pay and administrative processes to an outside third party who does not have the integral commitment to students and faculty that we have". To the staff (even if not directly affected) the message is the most devastating: "We do not care. We do not care about your past contributions. We do not care about your future." All of these messages do great damage to the "center of excellence" concept which this University is attempting to foster. NASA is also committed to the concept of this University as a "center of excellence". It is to the benefit of employees that the U of A take a leading role – this will provide ongoing development, continuing challenges and generally provide satisfaction in being employed at the University. It is because of this shared commitment that NASA finds it so incomprehensible that the University seems bent on not only throwing away a very valuable resource – highly trained employees – but also bent on avoiding taking a leading and innovative role in the field of Information Systems in the area of Higher Education. We believe that the University of Alberta does have a great opportunity available to it at this point in time. We believe that the current approach recommending outsourcing of IS is one of avoidance and is regressive. We also believe that the decisions are not based on sound business rationale and that most of the problems have now actually been solved and outsourcing will not solve many of the remaining problems. This submission proposes to, firstly, examine the reasons provided to the University community for pursuing the outsourcing option, secondly, review some of the actual problems of Information Systems (generally referred to as "IS") and thirdly, examine the limitation of outsourcing both locally and generally and finally, propose some alternatives. ======================================== WHY IS THE UNIVERSITY OUTSOURCING?When the University’s plan to outsource AIS was announced to staff on March 16, four basic reasons for the decision were given:
These reasons are also contained in the presentation material on the AIS website (page 4) and have been reiterated by management staff since March 16. Are these valid reasons for outsourcing AIS? An objective review would lead to a negative answer, in our opinion. First of all, it is critical to note that: the new systems have now essentially been implemented. THE DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING AN EXTENSIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM IS VIRTUALLY COMPLETE. The work now to be done is the ongoing maintenance, delivery and upgrading of the PeopleSoft systems. That the University would seek to outsource AIS at this point appears to be highly unusual! A review of the literature indicates that the majority of companies outsource their Information Systems at the commencement of the introduction and development of new systems since the initial investment in hardware and the "development growing pains" can be excessive. (See, for example "Beyond the Information Systems Outsourcing Bandwagon", Rudy Hirschheim and Mary Cecelia Lacity, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995.) Time Commitments Since the PeopleSoft systems have now been implemented, it is clear that the ongoing time commitments are lessening. Quite frankly, the answer to the University’s first concern is self-evident: the time commitment will NOT continue at the same level. For example, upon final implementation this spring, the staffing levels of AIS will be approximately one-half of what they were at the height of the development stage. (We will be discussing some of the developmental problems later.) We suggest that the concern about time commitments by Sponsors etc. is more a function of: (1) the lack of knowledge of IS on the part of many University management staff and (2) the inefficient decision-making structure of AIS. Most companies that implement comprehensive computer and information systems suffer from the same malaise: most management have difficulty comprehending and appreciating all aspects of the "computer world". The response is an all too human one: get rid of the responsibility of things you don’t understand! This problem of lack of comprehension has been compounded at the University of Alberta. The management of the AIS project has been spread out amongst many "sponsors" and AIS Steering Committee members (11 Sponsors and 30 Committee members!). This is an inappropriate management model for such a technically unique aspect of this University’s business. There must, of course, be ongoing involvement of the academic community in AIS – but that requirement will not diminish with outsourcing. In fact, we suggest that MORE time will be spent by the academic community in its interactions with an outside vendor since any such party will have to undergo extensive education as to the culture of this University. We suggest that this first concern is and can be met by (1) the fact that PeopleSoft has now been implemented and time demands by University Management outside of AIS will diminish and (2) devising a more efficient management structure with a concurrent education program for the general university population on the general aspects of the IS world. Stable Costs As stated earlier, this is a very odd juncture at which the University is considering outsourcing. THE MAJOR EXPENDITURES ARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS. THIS HAS NOW BEEN ACCOMPLISHED! There will be some ongoing and less than predictable costs – especially in the area of upgrades to the PeopleSoft systems. For example, PeopleSoft is now considering separating the human resources from the student software systems. Should this University proceed with such an upgrade a vendor will inevitably recover such costs from the University in any case. The number of modifications to the PeopleSoft software on this campus has made the element of unpredictability of costs inevitable. It is time to acknowledge the facts of life: this university will pay for that added complication regardless of whether the AIS function is retained or outsourced. Some literature suggests that outsourcing can in fact lead to added costs. The general experience appears to be that there may be cost savings in the initial portion of an outsourcing contract but that continued outsourcing usually proves to be more costly. If a party seeks to terminate such an outsourcing relationship, costs become truly prohibitive. ("Beyond The Information Systems Outsourcing Bandwagon", Rudy Hirschheim and Mary Cecelia Lacity, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995). Retention of Trained Staff The collective agreement between NASA and the U of A provides the parties with the ability to negotiate market supplements for employees in cases such as this (Article 16.05). In fact, in 1998, NASA identified retention of trained computer staff as an issue for the U of A and by correspondence dated June 27, 1998, requested the U of A to negotiate market supplements for CNS employees (many IS functions were then performed by CNS employees). THE UNIVERSITY REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE MARKET SUPPLEMENTS. Since the announcement of the decision to outsource, NASA has learned that some small number of employees have in fact received market supplements and other trained staff were hired on "individual contracts" at an average wage of $120 per hour. The University has the ability to encourage staff retention; it will not escape market forces by outsourcing, since the contractors all encounter the same issue of staff retention. The big difference is that the University will lose control over the ability to offer innovative incentives for trained staff to stay in the employ of the University. It is very odd that, while the University is putting together an innovative ‘Integrated Marketing" proposal, they have neglected any new approaches to staff retention in this highly critical area. Information Systems is a major area of study (typically found in Management Studies and Computer Faculties) and there are many possibilities of interrelating those faculties with the AIS department. For an example: salary is not the only issue for staff – the ability to spend a set portion of your work time in research and development or in teaching or learning on a broader basis would be very attractive for many people. An example of such an innovative approach is found at the Purdue University where departments will sponsor existing employees for training programs. Purdue found that this program was in fact cheaper than hiring outside consultants. ("The Chronicle of Higher Education", October 28, 1999.) To our knowledge, there has been no effort whatsoever to devise any innovative approaches to attracting and retaining valuable skilled staff in the IS area at the University of Alberta. We believe that the current situation of AIS in fact presents the U of A with a remarkable opportunity to truly become leaders in creative marketing. The added bonus to such an approach is that it would doubtless help attract students and faculty as well as permanent staff. The Public Image of AIS We agree that this is a problem. However, the fact that it is a problem bodes ill for the future of "Integrated Marketing". How can we expect to sell the University of Alberta to its own staff and faculty and then to prospective students and faculty if we cannot even "sell" the AIS department internally? We believe that this problem is the result of management failing to recognize that the remainder of the University should have been fully educated in the process that the University was undergoing. It is clear to us that the last five years have been very rocky. However, this should not be a surprise to anyone with an appreciation of the enormity of the changes contemplated by implementing PeopleSoft throughout the Human Resource, Finance and Student areas. As one employee pointed out, the systems had been stable for a very long time and people had forgotten the enormous disruption the campus underwent when those systems were first implemented. Clearly there had been inadequate preparation and education of the campus prior to and during the development of these systems. Also, as problems were encountered there was a real reluctance to publicly admit that the project was encountering problems. We have found that when employees are told that there are problems to expect and why those problems occur, they are willing tolerate them. In other words, if you admit to mistakes, people will understand. The current decision to proceed with outsourcing will create an even bigger PR problem. What the University will be saying is: "we made a mistake and you are going to pay for it". The fact of outsourcing will result in the message "your perception that AIS is dysfunctional is correct and we have terminated all those employees who are responsible". Again, many of the problems encountered were developmental problems. Now that the system is in place – because EMPLOYEES have implemented it and fixed most problems – we reward their hard work by placing blame fully on their shoulders and terminating their jobs. This message is being heard, loud and clear, by employees throughout this campus. ======================================== WHAT ARE THE REAL PROBLEMS WITH AIS?In surveying the approximately 60 seconded and temporary employees of AIS, it has become clear that no one has asked these highly trained people for their input into the problems of AIS. Instead, we have been told that the University’s research into alternatives of providing IS consisted only of:
One of the fascinating thing about this process is that the presentations regarding the outsourcing decision (and in fact the RPF itself) refer to the fact that PSC (now wholly owned by IBM) was consulted extensively prior to the studies being conducted and coincidentally is the only company identified as fully capable of contracting IS with U of A! Unfortunately this "coincidence" does some serious damage to the credibility of the entire RFP process. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to compare the Government’s experience with outsourcing since they have only outsourced their Financial and Human Resources systems. We have contacted the majority of the employees of AIS and asked them what they perceive to be the major problems facing AIS. The following represent an overview of some comments. Specific quotes are appended to this submission. Excessive Modifications Some employees identified the root of the problem being the selection of PeopleSoft and suggest that the University should have created their own systems. In our opinion, it is fruitless to debate this at this stage but it is important to keep in mind when evaluating the development process. What the vast majority of employees surveyed did identify as a major problem is that, due to the University’s unwillingness to change its systems and approaches to fit with the software, innumerable modifications were made to the PeopleSoft programs. And this appears to have been the major problem with the implementation of the new systems. As one PeopleSoft expert from outside the U of A explained: "If your business processes don’t change there will be big problems"… because of the complexity of PeopleSoft. As he explained, the Higher Education module has about 3500 tables and a change in one will affect many others. The lack of a strong centralized management structure resulted in a lack of direction as to limitations placed on modifications. Employees were instructed to attempt to meet the demands of other departments and faculties for modifications to the software which led to a nightmare situation. Unfortunately, the nightmare is not over. Because of the extensive number of modifications to the software, the cost of upgrading the systems will be very expensive – a cost that the University will have to bear regardless of whether they outsource or not. While it might be easier to have an outside contractor tell a particular faculty it must change its systems to make PeopleSoft run better, the University runs the very real risk that an outside contractor will not appreciate what modifications are truly important to a University environment. The most effective way of dealing with this problem is to create a task force to examine what University processes should change in order to minimize the costs of administering AIS. Such a task force MUST be given the authority to REQUIRE changes be made if it is determined that such changes are essential. We would further suggest that there is a role for outside expertise on such a task force. Together with internal staff, they could provide an objective evaluation and plan of action. Use of Contractors Many employees identified the use of contractors as contributing to the problems encountered by AIS. First of all, it should be appreciated that PeopleSoft presents an entirely different approach to software development. As one outside expert put it, "it requires a whole different set of tools". It presents a very different approach in the world of computer expertise (he went on to point out that the average age of trained PeopleSoft personnel was 29). As one of the employees pointed out, most of the contractors did not have experience in PeopleSoft – most people, whether contractors or employees – were in the position of having to train and gain actual experience. So many employees found themselves in a position of working next to someone who had no more experience than they did, who had no ongoing commitment to the U of A and who were earning an average of $120/hour – and had little accountability. Generally, we are of the opinion that the very high cost of consultants (there were up to 60 consultants at any one time in AIS) was a poor allocation of resources. Having said that, it should be recognized that apparently most of the contractors were hired for the development stages of AIS. However, we believe that this problem should be recognized and the University should instead be putting its resources into developing its internal staff, as did Purdue University Disaffection of Current Staff It is highly instructive to talk to staff about some of the implementation problems. For example, it is not a surprise that there were some big problems in the implementation of the Human Resources component in view of the fact that the development team was ordered to do a complete handover to the implementation team after only three weeks. The AIS staff believed a run of three months to ensure that "bugs" were worked out was critical to successful implementation. They were not listened to. There were many such issues. Finger pointing at this stage is not constructive – but it is nonetheless important to understand why these problems occurred. It is particularly important to understand this so as to appreciate the phenomenal level of bitterness we have encountered amongst the current staff of AIS. This bitterness is likely to contribute to the costs that the University will encounter since it clearly will affect staff retention. It cannot be overemphasized that the current staff feel that they have been made the scapegoats for mistakes not of their making. It must also be remembered that as late as December 1999 they were told that AIS had now become a permanent department and their jobs were in the process of becoming permanent. Many of the staff – both seconded and project temporaries – are seeking employment elsewhere. Their PeopleSoft skills make them highly marketable people on a worldwide basis. They are not eager to offer their skills to a contractor selected for the U of A, since they are so disillusioned as to not want any further relationship with the U of A. Their loyalty to this employer is fast disappearing (if any is left intact). Many are unlikely to remain until a contractor takes over, if that is the final outcome. This disaffection is not only a problem in AIS – it is also infecting CNS. Many CNS functions appear to be included in the Request for Proposals, e.g. servers are currently within the CNS Department. CNS seems to be very unclear as to its future, resulting in CNS staff seconded to AIS being told it is not clear whether their former jobs will exist. Uncertainty and disillusionment is rampant. Needless to say, the University can ill afford to lose such highly trained and skilled staff. ======================================== IS OUTSOURCING A VIABLE OPTION?Again, it is highly instructive to discuss the issues with current staff. Just recently, some of the staff attended a PeopleSoft conference for " Higher Education" users in Dallas. They uniformly report that the consensus amongst universities who have implemented PeopleSoft (particularly the Higher Education or student system) is that contracting out does not work in a University environment. It is generally agreed that Universities present a highly specialized culture which makes it difficult for a contractor to perform its obligations satisfactorily. In an article entitled "Technology Outsourcing: The Results are Mixed" (The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 29, 1999) it is reported that less than 2% of the U.S. colleges and universities now outsource their information-technology systems. That article suggests a few successes where some smaller universities required major hardware acquisition and the establishment of computer networks. Otherwise, it was reported that there have been many rocky relationships with contractors, some resulting in lawsuits. It is our information that no post secondary institution in Canada has outsourced its PeopleSoft Information Systems. Inquiries made of people experienced in PeopleSoft, outside of the U of A, has provided the information that there is a major shortage of trained expertise in the "Higher Education" system. There apparently is no such expertise available in Canada (outside of the few institutions who have trained in-house) and that is mirrored in the X-Wave report where it is clear that not even IBM has "student admin" people in Canada. Instead, they are reported to have 20 such people "worldwide". Apparently this lack of trained personnel will worsen over time since approximately 70 to 80 universities in the U.S. had purchased the Higher Education systems prior to this year but had waited until the passing of the "Y2K" issue before commencing the development and implementation. Outsourcing Generally As the authors of "Beyond the Information Systems Outsourcing Bandwagon" report, the announcement in 1988 of Eastman Kodak that they were outsourcing their Information System to IBM, DEC and Businessland started the trend of outsourcing IS. Twelve years later, it is clear that that trend is reversing. Kodak has recently announced it is insourcing some of its IS functions. This appears to be a result of a new commitment to better employer/employee relations. (See "A New Relationship with Employees", The CEO Series, Center for the Study of American Business, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, March 1997.) Here in Alberta, Telus is in the process of insourcing its IS functions and is terminating its contract with IBM. This latter information is particularly interesting since Telus is a "partner" of this University and it appears that no one has canvassed Telus as to their experience and their reasons for now insourcing. Companies are recognizing that first of all it is important to maintain control of such an integral part of their business and second of all, that it is generally more cost efficient to "in-source". The two studies produced by authors Mary Cecelia Lacity and Rudy Hirschheim (both published in the "Wiley Series in Information Systems") are very enlightening as to the effectiveness of outsourcing. Both studies were published at the height of popularity of outsourcing. The first study "Information Systems Outsourcing" published in 1993, examined 13 companies who outsourced and interviewed 30 individuals involved in the outsourcing process. Overall, the study accepted that outsourcing was a fact of business life and aimed to provide a balanced view so as to provide useful direction to companies embarking on outsourcing IS. Some of the findings are instructive. In two of the firms studied, the companies found they lost access to business expertise because the contractor hired trained personnel from the company and then placed them in other locations or contracts which were more lucrative to the contractor. This kind of scenario is all too likely to occur here when there is such a worldwide shortage of experienced PeopleSoft personnel – especially in the Higher Education system. Many participants of the study also reported that cost savings achieved by outsourcing could have been produced internally. This is mirrored by one of the conclusions of the study: that the decision to outsource is often a political decision and not one based primarily on cost issues. Based on their research, the authors state "outsourcing clients must negotiate a sound contract to ensure their outsourcing expectations are realized" and proceed to provide strategies. We believe the following quotes are particularly apropos: "The first step to a successful outsourcing arrangement is to realize the outsourcing vendors are not partners because profit motives are not shared. Claiming that vendors are partners is like claiming that Chrysler is a partner just because you purchase a LeBaron. The danger in viewing the outsourcing vendor as a partner is that the customer may sign a very loose agreement.. Customers may subsequently be charged excess fees for services that they assumed were in the contract…." (pp. 242-243). "…the IS employees will be dramatically affected by the outsourcing decision. Companies have a social responsibility to treat these people fairly; that includes informing them of the decision as soon as possible and helping them secure positions elsewhere… In typical outsourcing arrangements, the vendor will hire the majority of IS employees for a one-year trial basis… (p. 255). The RFP does not, in any way, address the issue of employees who will be displaced by outsourcing. This is a rather telling indicator of the University’s attitude towards its employees. The summary presented in chapter 8 of "Information Systems Outsourcing" contains some highly instructive "lessons". The first "lesson" which resulted from the study was: "Public information sources portray an overly optimistic view of IS outsourcing." The authors found that failures were under-reported. Generally they found that what was reported was projected savings – not actual savings. "Public sources neglect to report that some outsourcing clients are charged exorbitant excess fees for above baseline measures." (p. 256). The authors also reached the following conclusions:
The same two authors conducted a further study on outsourcing versus insourcing resulting in the publication of "Beyond the Information Systems Outsourcing Bandwagon" (1995). Considering the current trend to insource IS, this study proved to be somewhat prophetic. The authors examined the insourcing experiences of seven companies and interviewed 24 participants and interrelated this study with their previous one. Some of the conclusions reached by the authors are very relevant here. They state that many senior managers believe that outsourcing IS is no different from outsourcing other non-core business functions such as legal administrative, and custodial services. "This appears to be the direct result of companies abandoning diversification strategies to focus on whatever it is they believe to be their core competencies." The authors go on to find: "Based on our research, however, we conclude that IS is not like other organizational resources which have been successfully outsourced in the past. In particular, there are six characteristics associated with IS which make it different from other outsourcing candidates. These distinctive features, which were developed in Lacity, Willcocks, and Feeny (1994) and Lacity and Willcocks (1994) are:
The authors conclude that "Total outsourcing is a poor IS strategy for most companies because it fails to capitalize on the inherent cost advantages of internal IS departments," (p. 223) and actually recommend, "Selective sourcing, which capitalizes on the inherent advantage of both internal IS departments’ and external vendors’ inherent cost advantages is recommended". (p. 224). We believe that this recommendation is appropriate for the University of Alberta. We would suggest that the overall administration and systems management would be more efficiently performed "in-house". There may be some rationale for outsourcing projects which are short-term, for example, a particular upgrade to a system. There have, of course been developments since 1995, but the analysis which these authors recommend is essential and should be undertaken to see what business decision is the right one for the University of Alberta. ======================================== CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe current situation of AIS presents a unique opportunity for some innovative management initiatives. The University is, after all, in a uniquely well-placed position to tap into a tremendous wealth of resources. It also presents an opportunity to develop and enhance labour relations while pursuing those initiatives. NASA is prepared to work with the University to address the issues and find solutions that make business and labour relations sense. First of all, we believe the University should put this headlong plunge into outsourcing on hold in order to provide a meaningful reflection of the shared needs and objectives of the University and its employees. This is our opportunity to pursue creative approaches consistent with the "Integrated Marketing" proposal and to recognize and acknowledge the valuable resource the University has in its highly skilled staff. We would propose a streamlined management structure and the contracting of a highly skilled manager knowledgeable in the Higher Education systems of PeopleSoft. This person should report directly to the VP of Finance, Glen Harris, and to the VP Academic & Provost, Doug Owram. This manager should be given the responsibility of not only managing the ongoing business of AIS but also to set up the Task Force which we referred to earlier. We would envision that the current staff of AIS would be participants in this process. This manager must be given the power, upon approval from the two VPs, to actually implement changes that the Task Force finds are necessary to create a good IS department. Part of the mandate given the Task Force must, of course, be to examine the question of "rightsourcing" as Lacity and Hirschheim put it. The University must involve staff in this process. In preparing this submission, we have learned that we have a very rare global resource: well trained staff experienced in PeopleSoft – specifically in the Higher Education area. In fact, recently PeopleSoft held a world conference for the Higher Education Special Interest Group in Dallas; and two of the U of A employees were invited to make presentations. One presentation represented a technical breakthrough (increasing the tuition calculation rate more than thirty-fold!) and the other presentation was a very well received one on security issues. Many of these personnel have been committed employees of the University. The University will have to pay for training whether through a contractor or directly to employees. At least employees will have loyalty to the University of Alberta – even more so if they feel valued by this employer. The public image issue has to be addressed. It must be acknowledged that the implementation of PeopleSoft has been an incredible undertaking that inevitably involved developmental problems. The University must come to terms that PeopleSoft is the system implemented and must be prepared to admit to the mistakes made in the implementation process. In effect, there must be a reconciliation reached between AIS and the University community in order for progress to occur. The newsletter just issued by AIS is an example, albeit late, of the kind of communication that needs to happen. This reconciliation can be much better achieved internally by people familiar with the history and the culture of this university than by some outside contractor. There must also be a reconciliation between the University and the staff of AIS, through NASA. While we are concerned about the damage that has occurred in this relationship, the best medicine for repairing that damage would be for the University to say, "you are the best deal". There are specific actions that can be taken, e.g. market supplement negotiations with a commitment for annual reviews, a commitment to job security or alternatively positive alternatives for staff (retraining, severance, etc.). Some of the creative ideas mentioned in this submission can go a long way towards not only attracting new skilled staff but towards keeping a highly loyal, dedicated workforce. We believe that the total outsourcing of the University’s Information Systems is not a solution to the issues confronting the University. Rather, it is a recipe for increased costs, loss of control, loss of credibility and loss of valuable resources. With the loss of control over IS comes the loss of control over your public image. We believe that our proposal will allow both the University and the staff to reach a mutually beneficial solution for the administration of Information Systems at the University of Alberta. ======================================== The PlanStop the bleedingThe immediate actions required to maintain the current AIS staff are the following:
The greatest threat to the University is the market need for the expertise of the staff of AIS. The University is in the enviable position of creating a successful business by selling the skills and expertise of the current staff to other institutions.
KEEP CONTROL OF YOUR RESOURCES, BECAUSE YOU NEED THEM! PROMOTE THE UNIVERSITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE THAT FEW OTHER INSTITUTIONS HAVE!
Appoint a decision makerIn order for any ongoing program to be successful, internal or not, there has to be a decision maker in place. This person should report to VP (Finance and Admin) and VP (Academic). This person should have the IS knowledge and be given the power to amend administrative practices on campus, after review by you. The remainder of the University is prepared to be assisted in making the transition complete and to get past the frustrations of the implementations of the system. Guidance, and yes, sometimes directives, will be necessary to make the system work and minimize the need for specialized modifications to the program. The University can accomplish successful implementation and decrease the need for ongoing parallel systems by:
Address the Public Relations ProblemInvolve public affairs in promoting information and communications with all the users of the system and University Hall. Acknowledge that the U is "too far in" to move into other systems. Commit to making this one work. Acknowledge the best deal in town is the University’s own staff. This message alone will save a significant portion of the perceived PR problem. Let everyone know that someone is in charge and can make decisions. Consultation will occur, and decisions will be made. Provide weekly reports to all staff and users as to what is happening, any anticipated glitches, and how they will be fixed, especially if payroll will be wrong. Become the Leader in this area and promote the University internationally. Build the opportunity to be proud to be part of this endeavor. For Further Information contact Joy Correia, Focus Chair, 3623, joy.correia@ualberta.ca
750 Extension Centre Email: nasa@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca April 3, 2000NEGOTIATIONS UPDATEMEDIATION TO CONTINUE
On Thursday, March 30th, NASA and the Employer spent a full day in mediation addressing NASA’s concerns regarding union recognition and contracting out issues. As a result of the progress made during the session, your Bargaining Team has agreed to a further day of mediation, which is scheduled for Tuesday, April 11th. At this point in time, the Bargaining Team is cautiously optimistic that our concerns will be fully addressed. The mediator will be preparing a report outlining the discussions and understandings reached at the March 30th session. In addition, he will be preparing a Statement of Principles to guide the ongoing relationship between the University and NASA. As a result of the progress made, NASA has agreed to postpone the Labour Relations Board Hearing on the bargaining in bad faith complaint until April 17th and 18th. The Bargaining Team is committed to ensuring that the issues and concerns that caused us to take this action are addressed in a meaningful and concrete manner.
For Further Information contact Joy Correia, Focus Chair, 3623, joy.correia@ualberta.ca
750 Extension Centre Email: nasa@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca March 27, 2000NEGOTIATIONS UPDATEOVERWHELMING MEMBERSHIP SUPPORT!NASA TEAM REMAINS FIRM!NASA’s Labour Board Complaint of bargaining in bad faith is scheduled for April 10th and 11th. In response to our complaint, the Employer approached NASA with a proposal to participate in mediation to address NASA’s concerns regarding union recognition and contracting issues. NASA is deciding today whether or not to participate. NASA will be making an alternate proposal to Glenn Harris to avoid the contracting out of Administrative Information Systems. NASA has also succeeded in ensuring that AIS employees will have jobs until at least May 31st.
For Further Information contact Joy Correia, Focus Chair, 3623, joy.correia@ualberta.ca
750 Extension Centre Email: nasa@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca March 21, 2000NEGOTIATIONS UPDATEUnion Charges University with Bad Faith BargainingOn Friday, March 17, 2000, the Employer admitted they had been withholding critical information from the NASA bargaining team during negotiations. The Employer has been planning to contract out the entire Administrative Information Services Unit (AIS). This will seriously affect about 120 people who are currently working on human resources, student and finance systems and records. The University failed to consult with the Union regarding this matter and made a deliberate choice not to provide this information at the bargaining table. In addition, since the commencement of negotiations in January, there have been reorganizations of three other departments without any notice to the Union. This is a direct violation of the Collective Agreement. The NASA bargaining committee has accepted the excuse of "we didn't know" in an effort to make progress in negotiations. However, now that the Employer has deliberately withheld information, we cannot trust the Employer to provide the NASA bargaining team with the information we require to make the best decisions on behalf of the members. It seems that the new "open and honest" relationship the Employer wants is one-sided and only happens when it suits the Employer. In order for NASA to proceed with bargaining, the Employer must be compelled to tell the truth, to disclose important information in bargaining and to have Employer representatives who have authority at the bargaining table. We have filed a complaint with the Labour Board to ensure there is no more game playing. Your bargaining team is still prepared to continue bargaining once this issue of trust has been resolved. In the meantime, we are actively representing the AIS members. If you hear of any other impending reorganization on campus, please contact the NASA office immediately. For Further Information contact Joy Correia, Focus Chair, 3623, joy.correia@ualberta.ca OR Barbara Surdykowski, Business Manager, 439-3181, barbara.surdykowski@ualberta.ca
March 5, 2000NASA Bargaining Interests & IssuesSynopsis of NASA’s Bargaining Issues
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||