Estoppel Argument Collective Agreement

Estoppel Argument Collective Agreement

During the 2014-2016 round of bargaining, the University of British Columbia issued an estoppel letter noting that it would no longer allow members to extend the “end of the year” in cases where the rejection of the tenure complaint would continue after the end of the last year. This is a rare circumstance, but the consequences for members in cases where someone is fired, leaves university and then gets a job as a result of the complaint are enormous. The association has put a proposal on the table in this round, and although we have not received the wording of the agreement we are seeking, we have reached an agreement so that the current practice can be continued for the duration of the agreement. The issue is back at the negotiating table. Our proposal 19: “The Association proposes to amend section 2.03(g) of Part 4 so that if a member is denied the term and the complaint is not resolved within the last year, the member`s appointment will be extended” refers to this estoppel letter. Williams then filed a complaint with the Commission for unlawful dismissal, seeking retaliation for claiming compensation for the workers. Id. at p. 372. The City applied for dismissal under the doctrine of forfeiture of security because, as the City argued, the matter had already been decided by arbitration. The Board held that Williams had the right to assert his legal right to unlawful dismissal, even though he had previously joined arbitration on a related claim.

The commission went further and concluded that the matter was settled and williams` lawsuit in state court was different: the arbitration focused on whether the city had the right to fire Williams for employee compensation fraud, and the state court lawsuit was aimed at whether the city had wrongfully retaliated against Williams. The City requested the correction of the Commission`s decision from the Commission itself and a subsequent review of the Commission from the Review Panel, both of which were rejected. Estoppel`s second letter refers to the “annual reports” that departments have developed and that members complete as part of the performance process. The collective agreement does not actually mention “annual reports” as such. Instead, section 2.04(e) of Part 2 states: “All members eligible for the merit review shall provide the leader with a summary of their relevant scientific, teaching and service activities and may include an indication of the nature and importance of the activities.” Williams` union filed a complaint under the collective agreement between the union and the city, alleging that Williams had been fired for no reason. The union and the city agreed to settle the dispute before the Council of State, as stated in the agreement. The Council of State found that the city was in arbitration and concluded that Williams` receipt of workers` compensation benefits was acquired through “wilful deception” and “amounted to theft.” Id. The Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed the city`s first lawsuit after analyzing the relevant legal language, noting that the law and case law “allow a plaintiff to pursue a legal cause of action, despite a previous adverse decision of the same claim or a similar claim in arbitration initiated under a collective agreement.” ID to 386. In addition, the court concluded that even if the issue of arbitration were identical to that raised by Williams in a state court, collateral forfeiture would not preclude action in state court. On January 3, 2017, prior to the start of this round of negotiations, the University issued two letters of estoppel. The first was on our annual increases (CPI). Article 2.02(d) of Part 2 states: “The CPI may be retained if the Member demonstrates unsatisfactory progress in its career during the relevant period on the basis of the relevant criteria set out in Article 4 of Part 4.” As far as we know, this clause has never been used and we consider it an anachronism.

There is a reason why most Canadian universities have a progressive system like our CPI system. Universities typically have very long, step-by-step deferred salary systems, with professors starting at salaries well below the salaries they expect in retirement, and usually at a very high stage or may not reach the top at all. Therefore, we do not consider it appropriate to retain these increases. In response, Williams attempted to overturn the award in state court. Id. The State court concluded that the conciliation agreement was not restricted and that, therefore, the tribunal`s consideration was limited to two issues: (1) whether the award did not fall within the scope of the arbitration, and (2) the arbitrators “manifestly ignored the law” in the course of the proceedings. Id. The trial court answered both questions in the negative and rejected Williams` request to set aside the award.

The party so decided may revert to the clear language of the agreement by sending the other party a notice (usually referred to as an estoppel letter) indicating that it intends to return to the language of the agreement at the end of the current round of negotiations. The other party is then, of course, in a position to present a proposal to amend the text of the agreement at the negotiating table in order to bring it into line with previous practice. Nevertheless, the university has indicated that it intends to retain the increases. The exact wording of estoppel`s letter reads: “Faculty members do not receive a CPI if their careers are not progressing satisfactorily or if they have reached a plateau.” We responded by proposing to delete section 2.02(d) from Part 2 (it is part of our proposal #3). The university has now indicated that instead of annual reports, which often contain much more than a summary of activities, it intends to return to the very language of the agreement. The association did not make a proposal to the table to reintroduce the annual reports. In our view, the reporting forms developed by some departments have become so out of control that they are extremely cumbersome. A simple summary of activities is all that the agreement requires, and we think it makes more sense than current practice.

It is not appropriate for the employer to change its interpretation of a section without first giving the union the opportunity to negotiate better language in the agreement. If you hear the word “forfeiture” or the union or employer is “arrested”, reference will be made to.. .

Comments are closed.