FAQs

The FA Bargaining Team and Executive members firmly believe that the Employer has deliberately and needlessly stalled the process. Despite agreeing to prepare a final document after the tentative agreement was ratified on March 14, the Employer provided a draft agreement that contained hundreds of errors (e.g., the term of the agreement on the cover page, calculation of Chair’s stipends and salary scales, etc.) and remained incomplete (e.g., omitting significant portions of Article 21, the appendices, and salary scales, etc.). There were also items that failed to reflect the tentative agreement and would create operational problems if left unaddressed (e.g., Articles pertaining to the RTPP process across different FA member groups). However, the Employer’s Lead Negotiator consistently refused requests from the FA Lead Negotiator to meet and resolve the outstanding items. Instead, at the Employer’s insistence, communications were conducted exclusively via email, with responses from the Employer being extremely slow. The result of this approach is that the Employer failed to provide a complete and accurate draft agreement, leaving the two parties with no Collective Agreement to sign.

It must be clarified that, contrary to what the Employer alleges, FA has not suggested a single change to the ratified language. Instead, the FA has solely concentrated on ensuring that the agreements ratified on March 14 are realized in the finalized CA.

A timeline of what has transpired since March 14 is at the bottom of this FAQ.

While we do not presume to know the intentions of the Employer, stalling the signing of the CA has at least three tangible advantages for the Employer. First, it effectively reduces the life and power of the new Collective Agreement, allowing the Employer to avoid or defer fulfilling its obligations as outlined in the ratified Agreement. This includes accruing interest on retroactive pay and funds intended for professional expenses, effectively saving the Employer costs at the expense of our members. Second, the delays exhaust the FA of its resources, both financially and in terms of the time and energy of our members. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) recognizes the detrimental impact of such stalling tactics and bad-faith bargaining. In response, CAUT has provided financial support to MSVUFA through its Bargaining Rights Defence Benefit. Nonetheless, innumerable time and energy of FA members has been invested in the process of signing the CA. However, the reality remains that countless hours of FA members’ time and energy have already been consumed by the prolonged process of signing the CA. Depleting our resources at this stage positions the Employer advantageously for the next round of bargaining, enabling them to push for terms more favourable to their interests. This makes it critical for the FA to demonstrate that such tactics will not succeed. Accepting an incomplete or inaccurate CA would not only undermine the integrity of this bargaining process, including our Winter 2024 strike, but also set a dangerous precedent for future negotiations. Third, the Employer gains power and advantage by undermining union solidarity through union-busting tactics. As has been witnessed by all, the delay has caused tremendous stress within the FA membership. Our power as a Faculty Association is our solidarity. The Employer understands our strength and uses delay to undermine solidarity. The delay tactics of the Employer, coupled with their communications both publicly and privately, are calculated to cause division. The Employer wants infighting among members. The Employer wants members to lose confidence in the Bargaining Team and the Executive. That is how they win. For us to secure the best contract today and in the next round, we must be united.

In short, the Employer has failed to honour a number of agreements concerning the RTPP outlined in the Collective Agreement ratified on March 14, as well as in the Joint Committee memorandum issued on March 26. This has resulted in significant complications for the RTPP process.

The longer answer is threefold:

First, in the weeks following the ratification of the tentative agreement, the FA and the Employer mutually agreed to implement a two-week delay on all RTPP schedules to allow sufficient time for everyone to review the changes to the process. On March 26, the Joint Committee (JC) for the administration of the Collective Agreement released a memorandum of “Return to Work Timelines”, adjusting the starting date of RTPP timelines to “two weeks after the date the new Collective Agreement is signed.” The memorandum further stated that “the parties acknowledge that the RTPP Workshop will be delayed as major revisions are required”. At the time, both parties recognized that participation in the revised RTPP workshops would be essential for candidates and assessors to make informed decisions regarding the new RTPP process. The FA sincerely believed that the Collective Agreement would be signed sometime during the spring or early summer and has worked diligently towards that goal. It was also the FA’s expectation that the VPAP office would adhere to the March 26 JC memo, as it constitutes a binding decision for both parties.

Second, in May, the Employer ceased to abide by the March 26 decision issued by the Joint Committee. In that month, the Vice-President Academic and Provost’s (VPAP) office began to unilaterally send RTPP notification letters to FA members who were automatically going up for RTPP this year, instructing them to submit their application files via provided links. This action created a highly confusing situation: while some members correctly followed the March 26 JC memo and held off on their applications, others were instructed by the Employer to proceed with the “old” RTPP timelines outlined in the expired CA. The VPAP’s office did not inform the FA of its action, and the FA only became aware of the issue in September when members who had followed the Employer’s instructions reported their confusion. Upon learning of this issue, the FA Executive immediately requested that the VPAP’s office correct its mistake and clarify the situation. However, the VPAP’s office did not respond to this request. On September 20, the FA again urged the Joint Committee to issue a memo to address the confusion.

Subsequently, the VPAP acknowledged their mistake in allowing this misinformation to occur.

It is essential to understand the legal status of the Collective Agreement at this time to fully grasp the extent of the disruption caused by this mistake. Decisions of the Joint Committee are legally binding. While the “old” Collective Agreement (2018-2021) remains operative until the new Collective Agreement is signed, the RTPP schedules outlined in the old Collective Agreement were superseded by the specific timelines set out in the Joint Committee’s March 26 decision. Consequently, the Employer had no legal basis to require FA members to follow the outdated RTPP schedules.

On September 23, the FA and the VPAP’s office issued a Joint Statement through a JC memo, instructing that all RTPP work be paused while the JC worked to develop an interim RTPP protocol. Unfortunately, by this time, the previous miscommunication by the VPAP’s office had caused significant confusion and anxiety for members involved in the RTPP process.

Third, since the ratification of the new CA, the Employer has chosen not to honour many of the improvements in the RTPP Articles secured by the FA during bargaining. The Employer did not agree to honour these provisions until mid-October. For example, in the Employer’s draft of the CA, the RTPP Articles for lab instructors omitted large portions of sub-Articles critical to the coherence and integrity of the process. Similarly, much of the RTPP Articles for librarians was missing. Instead of addressing these omissions, the Employer accused the FA of “attempting to negotiate new language”. This situation highlights a broader pattern of the Employer’s delay tactics. Furthermore, the FA’s emails and meeting requests to the Employer representatives on the Joint Committee have often gone unanswered for days or even weeks. For instance:

• On September 23, FA representatives on the JC submitted a proposal for an interim RTPP protocol including revised RTPP timelines and articles.
• A JC meeting was held on September 24 to discuss the proposal, during which the FA requested the Employer’s response by the end of the week (September 27).
• On October 2, having received no response, the FA followed up with a written request.
• On October 9, the FA sent another follow-up, urging the Employer to respond immediately, and calling for a JC meeting no later than October 17.
• On October 15, the FA sent yet another written request, pressing the Employer to confirm their availability for a JC meeting and provide a response to the proposal including retroactive RTPP promotion dates and employment extensions.
• Finally, on October 16, the Employer confirmed scheduling a JC meeting for October 18, which was 25 days after the FA’s initial request.

The Employer’s continued delay has caused an unprecedented level of stress for FA members up for RTPP this year. The FA Executive recognizes the high level of anxiety among members regarding the RTPP process. The FA assures members that both those who have already submitted applications and those who have not are being fully advocated for. The FA has been prioritizing finalizing the interim RTPP protocol and has been pushing the Employer to expedite the process. The FA is also committed to keeping members regularly and promptly updated on RTPP developments.

The Joint Committee (JC) comprises three representatives of the Employer (typically the Vice-President Academic and Provost, the Academic Relations Manager, and an alternate Dean) and three representatives of the FA (typically the FA President, the FA Vice President, and the FA Grievance Officer). As outlined in the Collective Agreement, the JC is responsible for hearing complaints and resolving questions related to the interpretation and application of the Collective Agreement. Importantly, JC memoranda require agreement by both parties, i.e., the Employer and the FA.

The October 9 CMC (Case Management Conference) held by the Nova Scotia Labour Board scheduled a three-day hearing for January 13-15, 2025. This hearing will proceed only if all efforts to finalize the agreement and resolve the complaints have failed by then. In that case, even a hearing may not end the dispute, since the Labour Board lacks the authority to compel the parties to sign an agreement. Should the hearing take place, the Labour Board would concurrently address both complaints (i.e., the Employer’s complaint against the FA filed on August 28 and the FA’s complaint against the Employer filed on September 18). This approach follows the Labour Board’s decision to grant the FA’s request to consider both complaints together and issue a single decision. Recognizing that extending the process to January 2025 is unacceptable for FA members, the FA has been prioritizing continued facilitated discussions with the Employer in an effort to reach an agreement as quickly as possible.

All members of the Board of Governors (BoG) have the right to be fully informed about the state of labour relations at Mount Saint Vincent University (MSVU), particularly when these relations become a major disruptive issue for the institution.

Unfortunately, there is substantial reason to believe that many BoG members remain unaware of the developments in labour relations since the ratification of the Collective Agreement (CA) on March 14. This became evident during the October 10 BoG meeting when a question from a Board member revealed that most Board members—those outside the Board Executive team—only became aware of the delay in signing the CA through the Faculty Report submitted by the FA President. This report was circulated on October 8, after significant resistance from the Board Chair, who attempted to censor its contents.

The FA President has taken numerous steps to address the situation with the BoG. On August 29, the FA President requested a meeting with the Board Chair, Mr. Tyrone Cotie, to explore a resolution to the outstanding issues through the upcoming Conciliation. On September 11, the Chair declined this request. Subsequently, on September 12, the FA President sent a detailed letter to the Chair, outlining the urgency of the situation and the FA’s position, and urging the Board to direct the Employer’s Lead Negotiator to meet with the FA Lead Negotiator to expedite a solution.

Regrettably, the Board Chair did not share this critical communication with all BoG members. Instead, he simply responded to the FA President that the Board of Governors “are not the direct Employer of faculty.” This sentiment was echoed by the Employer’s Lead Negotiator, who has since repeatedly stated in oral and written communications that “the Employer” is not the Board of Governors, but rather “Mount Saint Vincent University.”

In October, the Board Chair further attempted to prevent the FA President from attending the BoG meeting and sought to censor her written and oral reports intended to inform Board members of these pressing issues. Detailed documentation of this serious incident can be found here.

In response, on November 8, the MSVU Faculty Association (MSVUFA) General Meeting passed a motion affirming the right of faculty representatives on the Board of Governors to deliver uncensored reports to the Board in both written and oral formats.

The Mount Saint Vincent University Board of Governors is explicitly designated as the Employer in the MSVU Charter and reaffirmed in the Collective Agreement.

This statement is incorrect, and it is unclear why the Chair of the BoG would make such an evidently false claim.

The FA Executive Committee has established an ad hoc Job Action Reflection (JAR) Committee to reflect on and learn from our experiences throughout this process, including bargaining, conciliation, the strike, and the efforts to sign and implement the ratified Collective Agreement (CA). If FA members are interested in joining JAR or have input for the committee to consider, please contact the Chair, Dr. Conor Barker, at [email protected].

In addition, the FA is actively exploring ways to strengthen relationships among members. Solidarity is built on trust, and in solidarity lies our power.

If you have concerns not addressed by this FAQ, or feel that some answers require further detail, we encourage you to contact the Chair of the FA Communications Committee, Dr. Nathaniel Street, at [email protected]. Dr. Street will relay your questions and concerns to the FA Executive and Bargaining Team, and update this FAQ as necessary. Alternatively, you are welcome to reach out directly to any FA Executive member. Click here for a list of the FA Executive members and their contact information.

The FA Executive and Bargaining Team have been transparent about the nature of these two complaints filed with the Labour Board. In the FA Updates released on August 30 and September 19, we shared the exact wording from the cover letters of both complaint packages. In our Aug 30 Update, we noted that on August 28 the Employer filed a 1,300-page complaint alleging that the FA has “failed to make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement and refused to finalize and sign the collective agreement reflecting the terms reached by the parties on March 5, 2024”. In our September 19 Update, we reported that on September 18 the FA filed a complaint asserting that “the MSVU Board of Governors is acting contrary to Section 35 of the Trade Union Act by failing to make every reasonable effort to conclude and sign a collective agreement”. The FA requested that its complaint be heard together with the Employer’s complaint to expedite the process.

It is important to highlight that the 1,300 pages of supporting documents prepared by the Employer’s Lead Negotiator for their complaint against the FA are the same documents supporting the FA’s complaint against the Employer. These materials include all email correspondence between the two Bargaining Teams from March to July 2024, as well as the Employer’s previous drafts of the CA. In other words, the 1,300-page document package does not substantiate the Employer’s complaint but instead provides compelling evidence supporting the FA’s position.

While the two Labour Board complaints are not confidential, the supporting documentation is not intended—or recommended—for release by either party. FA members who wish to learn more about the complaints are welcome to meet with an Executive member to review the documents. However, given the significant time and energy currently devoted to finalizing the Collective Agreement and RTPP process, neither the Bargaining Team nor the Executive can accommodate such requests at this time. Additionally, it is anticipated that these complaints will be resolved with the signing of the Facilitated Discussion Agreement. Should the interest in reviewing the complaint materials persists after all the work on the CA and the RTPP process is completed, the FA Executive will make every effort to arrange access to this information for members who wish to review it.

This is an Appended Letter of Understanding between the BoG and the FA, which has been included in every Collective Agreement since 1988. It currently reads:

“The parties agree that there shall be no layoffs for reasons other than financial exigency during the term of this Agreement. This Letter of Understanding shall absolutely expire on the date that the Collective Agreement expires and in compliance with the provisions of the Trade Union Act of Nova Scotia.”

At the start of bargaining, the FA Bargaining Team tabled Appendix B for inclusion in the new Collective Agreement. The Employer did not address Appendix B during the bargaining process, which meant it automatically rolled over into the new agreement upon ratification in March. According to the provisions of the Collective Agreement, amendments can only occur through explicit agreement by both parties. As a result, any provisions from the previous Collective Agreement that are not addressed during bargaining automatically carry forward into the new Collective Agreement. On June 10, the Employer stated that it did not recognize Appendix B, which constitutes a clear breach of the ratified agreement.

The Employer has refused to include the language of the appendix, traditionally listed as “Appendix B” in the Collective Agreement. However, the FA maintains its position that the letter of understanding applies. In the highly unlikely event of layoffs, the Association expects the Employer to adhere to the terms outlined in the Appendix. Should the Employer fail to do so, the matter will be resolved through arbitration. This position will be confirmed in writing by the FA Executive.

The Faculty Association (FA) has been made aware that incorrect information regarding department closures and layoffs has been circulating. The FA encourages members to review Articles 16 and 17 of the Collective Agreement for clarity. The language in these articles is strong and unequivocal.

Article 16, introduced in the 2003-2007 Collective Agreement, governs the merger or closure of academic programs under all circumstances including but not limited to situations of financial exigency. Within this framework, Article 16B specifically addresses internal mergers or closures of academic programs and departments, providing robust protections for members of the bargaining unit. Key provisions of Article 16B include:

• The Employer cannot unilaterally merge or close an academic program or department; there must be notice and consultation, with the process governed by Senate (see Article 16B.1).
• “All members … shall retain their existing academic status” (see Article 16B.2).
• Members are eligible for transfer to other units with no loss of rank, and the Employer must cover costs for any approved retraining (see Article 16B.3).

Article 17 addresses the conditions under which the Employer can declare financial exigency or initiate layoffs, which are the same conditions. Article 17.2 states: “… the Board of Governors shall not declare a state of financial exigency and/or initiate the lay-off of members of the bargaining unit except after rigorous economies have been introduced in all sectors of the University, including reductions of non-bargaining unit staff, and after all means of obtaining revenue have been explored and exhausted. No lay-offs of members shall occur except on necessary and reasonable financial grounds.” Article 17.15 reinforces this, stating: “Members shall only be laid off if it is reasonable and necessary to do so on financial grounds.”

The protections in Articles 16 and 17 are comprehensive and robust. Appendix B serves as a reaffirmation of principles already enshrined in the CA. Importantly, Articles 16 and 17 will remain unchanged in the new Collective Agreement, preserving the language from the previous CA.

Historically, in each round of bargaining, the new Collective Agreement (CA) has consistently had a start date that immediately followed the expiry of the previous agreement. However, following the ratification of the new CA, the Employer has chosen not to adhere to this established practice. Instead, they have insisted on alternative start and end dates in their various versions of the draft CA, with the proposed dates shifting over time. The most common start date demanded by the Employer has been the date on which the BoG ratified the Agreement, March 14, 2024, and with an end date of June 20, 2026. The rationale for these proposed dates remains unclear.

It is important to note that the term description on the title page of the CA does not affect the starting date for retroactive pay. Article 51.4 of the new CA explicitly states that salary adjustments “are retroactive to 1 July 2023.”

In an effort to expedite the signing of the CA, the Faculty Association (FA) proposed a compromise in October. The proposed amendment replaced the term description on the title page with the wording: “Expires June 30, 2026.” The Employer has since agreed to this compromise.

Yes. On September 10 the FA requested arbitration. However, the Employer did not agree and the process requires that both parties agree to going for arbitration.

Tentative agreements are rarely consolidated into a single document, and the process of formalizing them typically encounters little, if any, contention. However, it is a procedure that often requires several weeks, or even longer, to complete. The current situation, however, is unprecedented. Given the Employer’s subsequent actions, which reveal a troubling degree of bad-faith conduct, it is prudent for the FA to reflect on these events. Moving forward, the FA should consider a broader range of strategic options to prepare for any future scenarios of a similar nature. 

No. The FA Bargaining Team has focused exclusively on ensuring that all elements of the ratified agreement are accurately reflected in the signed Collective Agreement.

No. The FA representatives on the Joint Committee (JC) repeatedly requested that the Employer process retroactive pay in the correct amount as soon as possible. Although the Employer proposed to process the retroactive pay on August 28, their calculation of the raises was incorrect, resulting in a rate below what was agreed upon on March 5. 

On September 3, the FA representatives on JC provided the Employer representatives with the correct salary scales, Director & Chair stipends, and a list of salary-based compensation. They also requested that the correct retroactive salary amounts be processed without further delay. Additionally, the FA proposed that the new professional expense funds, which had been agreed upon and were to take effect on April 1, 2024, be made available to FA members immediately. The FA followed up on September 9, seeking a response from the Employer. Despite the FA’s efforts, the Employer did not respond to these requests. The outstanding issues with the salary scales were not fully resolved until October 18.