Report on YUFA Executive Meeting of May 4 2009

The YUFA Democracy Caucus

Present: Arthur Hilliker, Brenda Hart, David Cabianca, Louise Ripley, Didi Khayatt, Livy Visano, Idilko Kovacs, Suzie, Mary Kandiuk, Jay Rahn, Monica, Jill Flohil, Heidi Bishop, Ray Rogers

Visitors: Ester Reiter and Richard Wellen

Oy. This was not an auspicious first meeting following May 1st, the workers’ holiday.

Things started quietly and politely enough. The first order of business was a suggested $10,000 donation to the Centre for Research on Work and Society. Other campus unions have been more generous – YUSA we are were told has donated a significant sum. Our president, Hilliker wanted the decision postponed until we could see their budget so that we can see how they plan to use the money. (Noreen has indicated that the material Hilliker requested was sent after a similar request was made at an earlier meeting and he is dragging his heels.) The donation was approved in principle, and has now been twice deferred. Hopefully it will happen soon. [Ed. Note: Noreen’s statement about the significance of CRWS and about Hilliker's ongoing delaying tactics is posted below under the title "YUFA Executive Stalls on Donation to Labour-Friendly Centre"]

We discussed bargaining issues. We heard a confidential report by Didi Khayatt from OCUFA about bargaining throughout the province – no details will be given. Apparently many universities are negotiating one year settlements. However, at the last executive meeting a three year plan was proposed and passed which involves substantial savings for the York administration for the first of the three years. In light of what is happening in the rest of the province, this is of concern. A number of people, Livy, in particular urged that we ask the administration to open their books so that there is greater transparency and the administration can’t use the economic crisis to justify what they wish to do.

Sun Life has informed us that the cost of LTD Limited Term Disability premiums will increase by 75%.

Now – the truly aggravating stuff. The Stewards are in the midst of an election to decide who they want to represent them on Executive. As we know, thanks to a very eloquent presentation by Marcia Macaulay last week, the Stewards decided to continue the practice established in 2007 and limit the vote to elected Stewards, rather than all who sit on the Stewards' Council which includes Executive members. Heidi Bishop, who is the Returning Officer [appointed by Hilliker?] took it upon herself to investigate this on her own and consulted a lawyer to interpret our constitution for us without informing Suzie, who is Chair of Steward’s Council. The lawyer apparently presented an opinion that limited the vote to elected Stewards contravenes our constitution. We haven’t seen what she asked of the lawyer or the actual opinion. Heidi then decided to overthrow the decision of the Stewards body. Wow!

Hilliker maintains that in her capacity as Returning Officer, Heidi Bishop is ‘independent’ and neither the Executive nor the Stewards’ Council can tell her what to do. He supports whatever decision she chose to make and says that he has no legal right to question it. He argued that what needs to happen is to change the constitution. Things got pretty heavy.

We have no idea exactly what the lawyer was asked, how the situation was presented, or even if the lawyer was made aware that an election was already underway. Richard Wellen pointed out that lawyers' role is to give various interpretations – they are not authorized to decide policy for a union. There is no logical reason to follow the advice of a lawyer rather than Stewards' Council.

Suzie underlined the implications of this move – Executive gets an undue role in deciding who gets to be on the Executive. What is the reasoning or the justification behind Executive interference with stewards’ selection of two among themselves to represent them to the Executive?

Hilliker moved out of order suggestions that Executive be asked to remove itself from the decisions. He maintains how unhappy he is with the way the constitution is currently written empowering all of Steward’s Council to vote but unfortunately he can’t do a thing about it and maintains that Heidi acted quite independently of him and without his knowledge.

From my perspective, I don’t understand how a staff employee, responsible to her employer, the Executive, could transform into an impartial party in her role as Returning Officer. How is it possible that a member of another union, is suddenly in a position to dictate what our elected members on Stewards' Council should and shouldn’t be doing? The lack of democracy makes me crazy – it’s a combination of a majority on Executive that wishes to control how another YUFA body, Stewards' Council operates, plus for good measure staff that now has far more power than YUFA members.