Arts Council salary motion

Neal Madras (madras@nexus.yorku.ca)
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:18:58 -0500 (EST)


At the Faculty of Arts Council meeting yesterday, the following motions
passed resoundingly:

MOTION 1: (Moved by Neal Madras; seconded by James Porter)

"The Dean shall maintain an up-to-date list of the names
and base salaries, separately showing administrative stipends where
applicable, of all faculty members in the YUFA bargaining unit in the
Faculty of Arts. The list shall be available to all of these
faculty members upon request.
This change in policy be effected through written notification
of YUFA through the Joint Committee on the Administration of the Agreement
as outlined in Article 17.01 (c)."

MOTION 2: (Moved by Neal Madras; seconded by James Porter)

"The Dean shall maintain an up-to-date list of the names
and base salaries, separately showing administrative stipends where
applicable, of all faculty members in the YUFA bargaining unit in the
Faculty of Arts. The list shall be made available to any person who
is offered a position in the YUFA bargaining unit in the Faculty of Arts.
This change in policy be effected through written notification
of YUFA through the Joint Committee on the Administration of the Agreement
as outlined in Article 17.01 (c)."

The first motion passed 42-3. I didn't hear the count for the second motion,
but it was about the same.

Nobody really spoke against the motion. Dean Fallis' remarks were a warning
that this would not end the debate about what constitutes "fairness" in salary.
He is right, of course, but now we can have the debate with full information
available. Last month, the Arts Executive had heard a presentation from
Associate Dean Ian Greene about how these motions contravened Articles 8, 17,
and 18 of the YUFA Collective Agreement, when viewed in the light of existing
privacy laws. But this barely came up yesterday: Bob Drummond confirmed
our reading of the Collective Agreement that these motions did not violate
it. These motions do change existing practices, which is why they cannot
be implemented without passing through JCOAA, as Article 17 spells out.
Nobody mentioned privacy laws. My repeated inquiries to Ian Greene and
Paula O'Reilly, asking for precise information about which privacy laws were
relevant, yielded no reply. I infer from this that they now agree that these
motions do not contradict any existing privacy laws.

James Porter pointed out that passing this motion did not necesarily make it
happen. The Dean could still decide not to follow the wishes of Council. Of
course, we hope and expect that he will follow the clear wishes of
the overwhelming majority. However, this realization led to a slightly surreal
discussion of whether to change the directive "The Dean shall..." in the
motion to the more legally accurate "The Council urges the Dean in the
strongest possible terms to..." In the end, we kept the original wording,
which we felt _is_ in the strongest possible terms.

Neal Madras