Bargaining Bulletin #8: Student Feedback, Indigenous Representation, and Grieving without Fighting

If you missed my last bulletin about our first day back at the bargaining table, read it here. And follow the Open Bargaining discussion on our Discord.

Hi friends,

We’ve finished three days of bargaining and your Contract Negotiations Committee would like you to weigh in on some key issues at the table. We haven’t yet reached the heavyweight portions of our package yet (will you show up for Workload?), but there are some important questions to consider. Read on, and tell us what you think.

1. A new seat on the PD Committee for an Indigenous Faculty Member? (Appendix A)

The composition of the Professional Development (PD) Committee needs to be updated following the College restructuring in 2024. We tabled the recommendation of the PD Committee, but the College proposed an additional, thirteenth faculty spot on the committee, reserved for an “Indigenous member from anywhere in the College.” While we don’t know how this representative will be selected, it’s an interesting proposition–the intent is clearly to increase Indigenous representation on this important committee, which the Union wholeheartedly supports. 

However, we have expressed concern that moves like this tend to contribute to a disproportionate administrative burden placed on our Indigenous colleagues (who also often have cultural obligations), which can lead to burnout. We also note that Indigenous faculty are encouraged to volunteer for any of the other 10 faculty positions. That said, if the position is left unfilled, the Committee can still operate–albeit without a mandated Indigenous voice. One colleague on Discord suggested marking it as a priority seat instead. What do you think?

2. Making Faculty Appraisals fair and relevant (c.28)

We have proposed overhauling Faculty Appraisals (which we have re-termed “Faculty Performance Reviews”) to make them equitable, growth-centred, and relevant. For the most part, the Employer agrees, but we have two major points on which we would like to engage Faculty:

1. De-emphasize student feedback
   
   Currently, student feedback is the centrepiece of the appraisal process. This is wrong. Not only is student feedback unequivocally shown to be prone to bias (especially gender bias—source), there is no correlation between strong student feedback and teaching quality (source). The most emphatic evidence for this is that in 2018, an Arbitrator ordered Toronto Metropolitan University to ensure that student evaluations “are not used to measure teaching effectiveness for promotion or tenure.” Despite the overwhelming evidence, the Employer is reticent to remove student feedback from the process. We agree that students are invaluable in establishing the “classroom experience” and we encourage all faculty to regularly collect feedback from their students throughout each teaching term. But all other components of a review are far better indicators of faculty quality and less prone to bias. If you agree, make sure you let your Deans and Directors know!
   
   
2. Encourage senior faculty to undergo performance reviews
   
   Under our current Collective Agreement, Continuing faculty employed for six years or more only require a simple statement from the Dean instead of a complete appraisal process. The Employer and the Union agree that all faculty, including senior faculty, would benefit from a full performance review, provided it is growth-centred and useful. If this clause is accepted by both Parties, it might surprise some faculty who have not undergone an appraisal for several years! However, we would only accept this change if we’re convinced the new process will encourage reflective practice and opportunities for growth.
   

3. Fixing the Grievance Process (c.21)

It hardly needs saying that Labour Relations between the College and the Union could use a tune-up (just ask the Labour Board…). The Employer proposed some changes to the Informal Dispute Resolution process, and the Union responded in a way that we think outlines a clear process that still encourages informal settlement. We also invited the Employer to entertain a “Troubleshooting” process to grievances that would lead to a cheaper, faster, more efficient way of working through grievances–without lawyers. The Employer was interested and we have since exchanged counters on this new way forward. One good thing about bargaining is that it brings new Employer faces to the table who may not have been party to the vexatious relationship we’ve suffered through recently. And new perspective brings a hope for change. We will see!

4. Next week: Transparency Clause, Artificial Intelligence, and Right of First Refusal

We expect to hear back soon from the Employer on Faculty Performance Reviews (so let us know what you think!) and on our latest Troubleshooting Grievance counter. After that, we will move on to discussing our Transparency Clause, which also tries to address Generative AI. We will also respond to the Employer’s proposals on hiring Faculty, including the Right of First Refusal. This includes their proposal to create a two-tier agreement between teaching faculty and non-teaching faculty. Please rest assured that the CCFA will never accept a second class of faculty with inferior rights. We will engage with the Employer’s proposal on all other aspects, but that’s a clear red line.

We continue to raise the issue of the 1.6% Flex Allocation for Service Improvements–and Workload is coming. When it does, we will need every one who is available to show up.

If you would like to attend those Bargaining Sessions (and give your feedback to the Committee in person), please email our Organizing Coordinator, Janice Niemann (ac.ytlucafnusomac@gnizinagro)!

Thanks, as always, for your support. It’s hard work, but it’s easier to know that we have every CCFA member behind us.

In sol,

Michael