Write Your College President

OPSEU members at a rally

Support the only option that puts students first

Help us send a message to College Presidents and Boards of Governors Chairs. As college leaders, their primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success. They need to direct the College Employer Council to return to the table and bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration, so that students can continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Click on your college below and complete the form to send an email to your College President and Board of Governors Chair.

Your email will be copied to: Linda Franklin, President & CEO Colleges Ontario; Graham Lloyd, CEO College Employer Council (CEC); Laurie Rancourt, Chair, CEC Bargaining Team; Jill Dunlop, Minister of Colleges and Universities; Premier Doug Ford and your OPSEU/SEFPO college faculty bargaining team.

Algonquin College

Algonquin College President - Claude Brulé

Dear Claude Brulé

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Collège Boréal

Collège Boréal President - Daniel Giroux

Monsieur

Monsieur,

Puisque les présidents des collèges donnent des directives au Conseil des employeurs des collèges (CEC), permettez-moi de vous demander d’inviter l'équipe de négociation du CEC à reprendre les négociations avec le personnel scolaire, à négocier les questions où les équipes sont proches et à accepter l’arbitrage volontaire des différends pour les autres questions.

Il est plus que temps de satisfaire les revendications du personnel scolaire pour le bien des étudiants : jusqu’à deux minutes supplémentaires par semaine pour évaluer le travail des étudiants; du temps additionnel pour l’apprentissage en ligne; des charges de travail raisonnables pour les coordonnatrices et coordonnateurs de programme; et de meilleures conditions de travail et sécurité d’emploi pour le personnel scolaire contractuel syndiqué.

Ces propositions, qui ont un coût extrêmement faible, ou qui ne coûtent rien à l'employeur, sont extrêmement bénéfiques pour les étudiants et la stabilité du système. L'arbitrage volontaire des différents permettrait d'éviter une nouvelle escalade et d'assurer la stabilité des relations de travail – un élément essentiel pour la communauté.

Il ne s’agit pas ici de prendre parti dans un conflit de travail : demander au CEC de revenir à la table ne signifie pas approuver l’une ou l’autre équipe. Lors du processus d’arbitrage volontaire des différends, c’est une partie neutre et digne de confiance qui décide de la manière de répondre aux questions encore en litige, ce qui évite toute interruption de travail.

Lorsque tout a été dit et fait, il n’en reste pas moins que l'offre d'arbitrage volontaire des différends est la seule proposition sur la table qui assure aucune interruption de travail et aucune interruption d'apprentissage pour les étudiants.

L’arbitrage volontaire des différends qui a été proposé par l’équipe de négociation du personnel scolaire permet à un arbitre de choisir les meilleures propositions de chaque partie. En revanche, l'arbitrage de sélection de l'offre finale proposé par le CEC oblige l'arbitre à choisir l’offre d’une partie ou celle de l’autre partie dans son intégralité.

La sélection de l'offre finale se traduit par des gagnants et des perdants. Même si nous ne savons pas qui serait le gagnant, nous croyons que les étudiants seraient les perdants.

En tant que président de notre Collège, votre responsabilité première est de faire passer les étudiants en premier et de bâtir la communauté. Pour le moment, cela signifie appuyer la seule option qui place les étudiants au premier plan et permet au personnel scolaire de se focaliser sur la réussite de leurs étudiants.

Permettez-moi de vous demander de dire au CEC de revenir à la table pour négocier de bonne foi les revendications du personnel scolaire, ou à défaut, d’accepter l’arbitrage volontaire des différends. Permettez aux étudiants de poursuivre leurs études sans distraction ni stress supplémentaire.

Signature :

%%your signature%%

Cambrian College

Cambrian College President - Bill Best

Dear Bill Best

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Canadore College

Canadore College President - George Burton

Dear George Burton

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Centennial College

Centennial College President - Craig Stephenson

Dear Craig Stephenson

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Conestoga College

Conestoga College President - Dr. John Tibbits

Dear Dr. Tibbits

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Confederation College

Confederation College President - Kathleen Lynch

Dear Kathleen Lynch

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Durham College

Durham College President - Don Lovisa

Dear Don Lovisa

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Fanshawe College

Fanshawe College President - Peter Devlin

Dear Peter Devlin

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Fleming College

Fleming College President - Maureen Adamson

Dear Maureen Adamson

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

George Brown College

George Brown College President - Gervan Fearon

Dear Gervan Fearon

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Georgian College

Georgian College President - Dr. MaryLynn West-Moynes

Dear Dr. West-Moynes

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Humber College

Humber College President - Chris Whitaker

Dear Chris Whitaker

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

La Cité College

La Cité College President - Lisa Bourgeois

Madame

Puisque les présidents des collèges donnent des directives au Conseil des employeurs des collèges (CEC), permettez-moi de vous demander d’inviter l'équipe de négociation du CEC à reprendre les négociations avec le personnel scolaire, à négocier les questions où les équipes sont proches et à accepter l’arbitrage volontaire des différends pour les autres questions.

Il est plus que temps de satisfaire les revendications du personnel scolaire pour le bien des étudiants : jusqu’à deux minutes supplémentaires par semaine pour évaluer le travail des étudiants; du temps additionnel pour l’apprentissage en ligne; des charges de travail raisonnables pour les coordonnatrices et coordonnateurs de programme; et de meilleures conditions de travail et sécurité d’emploi pour le personnel scolaire contractuel syndiqué.

Ces propositions, qui ont un coût extrêmement faible, ou qui ne coûtent rien à l'employeur, sont extrêmement bénéfiques pour les étudiants et la stabilité du système. L'arbitrage volontaire des différents permettrait d'éviter une nouvelle escalade et d'assurer la stabilité des relations de travail – un élément essentiel pour la communauté.

Il ne s’agit pas ici de prendre parti dans un conflit de travail : demander au CEC de revenir à la table ne signifie pas approuver l’une ou l’autre équipe. Lors du processus d’arbitrage volontaire des différends, c’est une partie neutre et digne de confiance qui décide de la manière de répondre aux questions encore en litige, ce qui évite toute interruption de travail.

Lorsque tout a été dit et fait, il n’en reste pas moins que l'offre d'arbitrage volontaire des différends est la seule proposition sur la table qui assure aucune interruption de travail et aucune interruption d'apprentissage pour les étudiants.

L’arbitrage volontaire des différends qui a été proposé par l’équipe de négociation du personnel scolaire permet à un arbitre de choisir les meilleures propositions de chaque partie. En revanche, l'arbitrage de sélection de l'offre finale proposé par le CEC oblige l'arbitre à choisir l’offre d’une partie ou celle de l’autre partie dans son intégralité.

La sélection de l'offre finale se traduit par des gagnants et des perdants. Même si nous ne savons pas qui serait le gagnant, nous croyons que les étudiants seraient les perdants.

En tant que présidente de notre Collège, votre responsabilité première est de faire passer les étudiants en premier et de bâtir la communauté. Pour le moment, cela signifie appuyer la seule option qui place les étudiants au premier plan et permet au personnel scolaire de se focaliser sur la réussite de leurs étudiants.

Permettez-moi de vous demander de dire au CEC de revenir à la table pour négocier de bonne foi les revendications du personnel scolaire, ou à défaut, d’accepter l’arbitrage volontaire des différends. Permettez aux étudiants de poursuivre leurs études sans distraction ni stress supplémentaire.

Signature :

%%your signature%%

Lambton College

Lambton College President - Robert J. Kardas

Dear Robert J. Kardas

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Loyalist College

Loyalist College President - Dr. Ann Marie Vaughan

Dear Dr. Vaughan

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Mohawk College

Mohawk College President - Ron McKerlie

Dear Ron McKerlie

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Niagara College

Niagara College President - Sean Kennedy

Dear Sean Kennedy

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Northern College

Northern College President - Dr. Audrey J. Penner

Dear Dr. Penner

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Sault College

Sault College President - Dr. Ron Common

Dear Dr. Common

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

St. Clair College

St. Clair College President - Patricia France

Dear Patricia France

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

St. Lawrence College

St. Lawrence College President - Glenn Vollebregt

Dear Glenn Vollebregt

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Seneca College

Seneca College President - David Agnew

Dear David Agnew

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%

Sheridan College

Sheridan College President - Janet Morrison

Dear Janet Morrison

Since College Presidents give direction to the College Employer Council (CEC), I ask that you instruct the CEC bargaining team to resume bargaining with faculty and conclude negotiations on issues where the teams are close, and agree to voluntary binding interest arbitration on the other issues.

Faculty demands are about time for students: up to two additional minutes to grade students’ work each week and additional time for online learning; reasonable workloads for program co-ordinators; and improved working conditions and job security for unionized contract faculty.

These are extremely low- or no-cost to the employer but provide enormous benefit to students. Binding interest arbitration will prevent further escalation and ensure stability in labour relations – an essential component to community.

This is not about taking sides in a labour dispute: Calling the CEC back to the table doesn’t mean endorsing either team. With binding interest arbitration, a trusted, neutral party will decide on how the differences should be addressed and ensures there is no labour disruption.

When all is said and done, the fact remains: the only current proposal on the table that ensures no labour disruption and no interruption to student learning, is the offer of voluntary binding interest arbitration.

The binding interest arbitration proposed by the faculty bargaining team permits an arbitrator to select the best proposals from each side’s offer. In contrast, the final offer selection arbitration proposed by the CEC forces the arbitrator to select one offer or the other, in its entirety.

Final offer selection creates winners and losers. While we do not know who the winner would be, we believe that students would lose.

As our College President, your primary responsibility is to put students first and build community. Right now, that means supporting the only option that puts students first and allows faculty to focus on student success.

I am asking you to direct the CEC to return to the table and to bargain faculty’s demands in good faith, or failing that, to agree to binding interest arbitration. Please let students continue their studies without distraction or added stress.

Signed,

%%your signature%%