The Memorial University of Newfoundland Faculty Association (MUNFA) is on strike.  The strike seems not primarily about salaries (the two sides are not that far apart, 16% over 4 years vs 12% over 4 years plus a signing bonus) and only a bit about post-employment benefits (management wants to funnel new staff into a somewhat less generous pension plan).  Rather, if you follow many of the strikers online, you’ll see that the big rallying call is for “collegial governance”.

Now, what people on picket lines say they are fighting for and what is being negotiated for at the bargaining table are not always the same thing.  For instance, online I have seen people claim that with more collegial governance, workloads will go down (which is only true if by collegial governance you mean “a boatload of money suddenly appearing to hire new staff,” and in any case MUNFA specifically dropped workloads from the bargaining agenda back in November).  In many cases, “frustration with collegial governance” seems like code for “I dislike the administrators around here”.  Which, you know, fair enough, but seems odd as a rationale for a strike because the admins are still going to be there when the picketing is over.

What MUNFA is asking for specifically is a clause which reads as follows: 

“collegial governance” shall mean rights, privileges and responsibilities of [Academic staff members, or ASMs] to fully participate in the university, including collegial processes as set out in Senate regulations, guidelines, policies and decisions, and in institutional systems of peer review and decision-making processes specified by this Collective Agreement

This would replace a clause (1.12) in the existing collective agreement on “collegial rights of members” which reads as follows:

“The University recognizes the right, privilege, and responsibility of ASMs to participate in collegial processes of the University as set out in Senate regulations, guidelines, policies and decisions, and as specified by this Collective Agreement”

Pretty similar, right?  The difference between these two clauses is the addition of just thirteen words: “fully participate in the university” and “institutional systems of peer review and decision-making processes”.  Anyways, the university is choosing not to make a counter-offer on this point, which has made many faculty members steaming mad even though often bargaining isn’t done clause-by-clause and the university might just be seeing what it can get in trade elsewhere for this point. 

But leave that possibility aside for the moment, and let’s say that the gap on this point is entirely one of principle on both sides.  How should we interpret this stand-off?  Either the thirteen words don’t mean very much and both sides are making a mountain out of a molehill, or the thirteen words are extremely significant and both sides are right to hold out.

My take is that it’s the first five words—fully participate in the university–that matter.  The current clause effectively equates with collegial governance with Senate and its regulation.  What the union is asking for by including the words “fully participate in the university” is a commitment to something more open-ended.  Indeed, the commitment is so vague that it could conceivably be a basis for all kinds of grievances if the union does not like the way the university is being run.  This kind of phrasing around faculty participation may be a worthy sentiment, but not one that works well in a legally-binding labour agreement.

Compare what MUNFA is asking for compared to some other collegiality clauses in collective agreements across the country.  Here’s Dalhousie’s:

Except as expressly provided for in the certification order or this collective agreement, the Board acknowledges the importance of participation by Members and other Academic Staff in the collegial process, including the internal regulation of the university and the selection of academic administrators, in accordance with arrangements approved from time to time in Senate and Board.

Got that?  The Board “recognizes” the importance of participation in the collegial process”.  It does not use the language of “rights”

Here’s the University of Ottawa:

The Parties recognize that the collegial process is a fundamental element of university life. The Parties undertake to respect that principle and thus recognize the right and responsibility of Members to participate individually, each in accordance with her own responsibilities, in the formulation of policies and procedures for the functioning of the University of Ottawa and take part in the work of appropriate committees, councils and assemblies

Again, the language is one of “recognition” not “rights”; moreover, there is a clearer equation of “collegial process” with “formulation of policies” through committee work, not a vague and unqualified commitment around “full participation”.

In any case, it seems what MUNFA is asking for is something more open-ended than is typically seen in other universities, wording that creates a lot more space for a kind of administrative litigation that strikes me as the very opposite of collegiality.  Without impugning MUNFA’s motives here, I think this speaks to the impossibility of the tactic of trying to resolve governance issues through collective bargaining.  “I’m going to grieve your lack of collegiality” simply isn’t a solution.

To the extent that collegial governance is about effective collective priority setting (rather than creating more points of veto on collective action, which it unfortunately sometimes is) it is something to be greatly encouraged.  But it matters because it is a value, a habit and a reflex, not something to be bargained over or potentially even bargained away.  Whatever valid grievances faculty at Memorial may have about administrators, they simply aren’t going to be solved by adding five deliberately vague words into a collective agreement. 

And yet these five words seem to be a major factor keeping 18,000 students at Memorial from their education.   This is not good.