Court Case

http://cupfa.org
• In 2002 a grievance is filed by the Association to contest the pay inequity of some members and adjuncts (essentially full time faculty and senior administrators) who teach extra part-time courses on top of their regular teaching duties. The value of a 3 credit part-time course is determined by our Collective Agreement, yet the employer determines a higher and different rate for those who receive our part-time courses as reserve courses. The pay difference between regular part-time members and a new category of salaried part-time members (adjuncts receiving PT courses ) since 2002 varies between a few hundred dollars up to one thousand dollars. Only one collective agreement, the CUPFA Collective Agreement can determine the value or worth of a 3 credit course.
• We lose the grievance but win before a labour arbitrator
• The employer decides to ask the Quebec Superior Court for a judicial review in 2005. Superior Court affirms the employer's position.
• In 2006 we ask for leave to appeal before the Quebec Court of Appeal and the appeal is granted.
• In 2007 we appear before the Quebec Court of Appeal and win the original decision by the arbitrator
• In September 2007 the employer asks for the right for leave on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
• In December 2007 the employer loses the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
• In January 2008 CUPFA returns to the arbitrator to establish a date to determine quantum (the amount of retro salaries since 2003 that the employer owes CUPFA members)
• With interest the amount the employer owes CUPFA's members is around $17 million in back-pay
• A conclusion of the amount of money owed to part-time faculty members will be determined by the original arbitrator by the spring of 2008

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• CUPFA
• collective
• agreement
• court
• case
• concordia
• u.