SMU TAs Bargaining Updates

Upcoming Conciliation Dates:

July 25, 2025
July 28, 2025
September 22, 2025

Past Bargaining Dates:

November 12, 2024
November 13, 2024 (cancelled)
January 9, 2025
January 10, 2025
January 16, 2025
January 17, 2025
January 29, 2025
February 27, 2025 (cancelled)
March 11, 2025
March 25, 2025
April 10, 2025
April 24, 2025
April 30, 2025
June 17, 2025 (cancelled for conciliation)
June 18, 2025 (cancelled for conciliation)
June 24, 2025 (cancelled for conciliation)

Updates:

July 25, 2025: Our first conciliation meeting was held. Marlo introduced herself and explained the purpose of conciliation and what her goal as a conciliator is: getting us a deal. We discussed our concerns about bargaining with SMU so far and the urgency of getting better working conditions for TAs.

TAs began the day by providing a new counter on Health and Safety, and withdrew our Technological Change proposal. After reviewing the list of outstanding articles, we determined that we were waiting for the employer to respond to every single proposal – a testament to the hard work of TAs and the laissez-faire attitude the employer has demonstrated in bargaining.

The employer did not come prepared with new language, so we spent most of the morning waiting for them to finish their counters. Throughout the day, we exchanged the following counters:

Recognition and Representation of the Union (x 3)
Harassment & Discrimination
Union Membership (x 3)
Payment Procedures
Layoffs
Discipline & Discharge (x 3)
Health and Safety (x 4)

Overall, this was the most productive day the employer has had yet, delivering a total of ten counters. We are hopeful this means conciliation will keep SMU accountable to doing the work in a timely manner. Unfortunately, most of the counters they provided us with were reiterations of their previous positions, suggesting the employer is still unwilling to meet us in the middle. We found their counter on Harassment & Discrimination protections to be particularly insulting, as it was actually worse than their already-scant original proposal.

Fortunately, we were able to reach a tentative agreement on Discipline & Discharge procedures and Health & Safety (pending compensation for OH&S Committee membership) before ending for the day. We still have not received their proposal for TA wages, which they agreed to provide us on April 10, 2025.

June 10, 2025: Both the employer and TAs approve Marlo Shinyei as the conciliator and schedule additional dates in July. The employer said they could not meet at all in August or most of September, forcing the 3-day conciliation meetings to take place over a two month period instead.

June 4, 2025: Marlo Shinyei was appointed as conciliator for our negotiations.

May 29, 2025: TAs filed a conciliation request with Conciliation and Mediation Services, Nova Scotia. Conciliation is the process of bringing a neutral third-party into bargaining, which is used when employers and employees can’t reach a tentative agreement while bargaining on their own. In Nova Scotia, it is a legal requirement to enter conciliation before any strike action occurs.

This decision was made by TAs after careful consideration and thoughtful discussion with our CUPE representatives. Ultimately, we felt that we were unable to reach an agreement with the employer without a conciliator for the following reasons:

TAs provided dozens of counter proposals to the employer and agreed to many of the employer’s proposals. We perceived that the same effort was not being made by the employer, since they had only agreed to one of our proposals (the definition of “Union”) and often showed up to our bargaining meetings with no new language prepared. By our April 30th meeting, we had simply run out of articles that we were able to counter/negotiate, and the employer declined to provide their next counters in a timely manner.
The employer continuously diverted negotiations by asking us to agree to their management rights proposal, despite us reiterating on multiple occasions that we did not agree with the language as they had written it.
Similarly, the employer has still not delivered their proposal on wages, despite agreeing to do so on April 10th.
On dozens of occasions, the employer refused to agree to language that they explicitly stated to us that they supported. For example, the employer said they would never expect TAs to work while sick or injured, but were not willing to agree to to the following language: “While an Employee is ill, injured, disabled, or otherwise incapacitated, the Employee will not be expected to complete assigned tasks or attend course activities.”
Further, the employer unnecessarily withheld agreement to very basic, uncontroversial proposals for long periods of time. For example, the employer did not agree to our definition of “Union” for until the fifth meeting, and did not provide us with a correct definition of “Employee” until our eleventh meeting, despite both of these definitions being decided by the Nova Scotia Labour Relations Board in our August 29th, 2023 certification order.
The employer provided bogus and contradictory explanations for rejecting our proposals. For example, the employer declined harassment and discrimination protections for TAs, an article that is included in most collective agreements, because it was “already covered by provincial/federal legislation” (which is not true – our proposal contains many unique protections for TAs). At the same time, they argued that it was essential for the employer’s management rights to be included in the collective agreement, even though their right to manage is actually enshrined in case law and legislation.
The employer made several comments that made TAs feel that we were not being heard or respected as equals at the negotiating table. As just one small example, their lead negotiator stated that the employer’s representatives “know better than anyone what it’s like to TA” while speaking to current and recent SMU teaching assistants.

Taken together, all of these issues led TAs to believe that the employer was trying to hold up negotiations, frustrate the bargaining committee, and delay a collective agreement for as long as possible. By bringing in a neutral third-party conciliator, TAs hope that SMU will take a renewed, good-faith approach to negotiations and provide TAs a fair deal to avoid labour disruption.

April 30, 2025: TAs agreed to the following counter proposals from the employer:

Definition of Day
Definition of Employee
Definition of Teaching Assistant

In addition to re-sending us their original management rights proposal (even though we have declined in writing and verbally numerous times), the employer finally presented counters on the following articles:

Arbitration (x 2)
Fees & Allowances
Job Postings (i.e., hiring)
Time Off Requests
Holidays
Definition of Supervisor
Health and Safety

By the end of the day, TAs were able to agree to Definition of Supervisor, Fees & Allowances, and Holidays; however, we notified the employer that we did not accept their proposal on Time Off Requests because they removed all guarantees that the employer would make reasonable efforts to accommodate time off requests from TAs (e.g., due to illness, injury, incapacitation, school-related events, conferences, etc.). While the employer verbally agreed this type of accommodation should be common practice at SMU, they were not willing to put it in writing; therefore, we informed them we were at an impasse. We then provided a counter proposal on Job Postings.

TAs again reiterated, verbally and in writing, our position on Management Rights. We stated that unless the employer planned to revise their existing language, we were at an impasse. We reminded the employer that they cannot hold up (or threaten to hold up) bargaining until we agreed to their proposal given that we have already responded numerous times.

Next, we reviewed the list of outstanding articles together and highlighted those for which we were at an impasse. The employer was surprised to hear the word “impasse” and disagreed with our use of the word. For example, TAs had proposed access to a benefits plan, which the employer said we would not be granted because we are not full time employees. SMU stated that they do not consider this an impasse; however, since the TAs are not willing to withdraw our benefits proposal, and SMU is not willing to agree to any benefits for TAs, this is quite literally the perfect example of an impasse.

Finally, we provided the employer with an overview of bargaining so far, including that we have met with them eleven times and they have only agreed to one of our proposals (Definition of Union). We also highlighted that they were refusing to engage with a number of articles because they were “monetary,” even though we had mutually agreed to propose monetary items on April 10. Out of the remaining proposals the employer was willing to discuss at this time, TAs stated that we were at an impasse with all but three (Job Postings, Harassment & Discrimination, Health & Safety). We asked the employer to respond to these three proposals by email within the next few weeks, but the employer refused because they would be busy with convocation throughout May.

April 29, 2025: TAs provided counter proposals on the Definition of Supervisor and Health & Safety to the employer via email.

April 24, 2025: TAs notified SMU that we tentatively agree to the following counter proposals provided to us:

Grievances
Definition of Employee File
Labour Management Committee
Definition of Course

TAs then presented counter proposals for Time Off Requests, Fees and Allowances, Arbitration, and Job Postings. We reminded the employer that we are still waiting for their responses to Paid Holidays, Occupational Health & Safety, Discipline, and Harassment & Discrimination. Again, they were not prepared to provide counter proposals and we decided to caucus to give them time to prepare responses. After the caucus, SMU declined all four proposals without countering, and again insisted we needed to respond to their Management Rights article first. We informed them, again, that our response is that we decline their Management Rights proposal and that unless they have changed their proposal, we have not changed our position.

Observers were present throughout the day without incident.

April 10, 2025: TAs provided an explanation for the counter proposals that were delivered by email on April 2; unfortunately, SMU had not prepared any counters since our last meeting. Instead, they insisted we need to agree to their “Management Rights” proposal before we proceed with bargaining (we had already rejected this article on Jan 10). Again, we declined their management rights proposal and decided to caucus so that they could prepare their responses to our counters.

Throughout the day (including caucus and lunch periods), the employer provided counter proposals for the Definition of Employee, Definition of Employee File, Labour Management Committee, Definition of Course, Fees and Allowances, Arbitration, Time Off Requests, and Job Postings. They also declined our proposal on Layoffs because TAs are not full-time employees and therefore “ineligible” for these protections (Please note: There is nothing in NS labour code that restricts us from these protections).

As agreed to at our last meeting, TAs presented our monetary items (i.e., wages and vacation pay); however, SMU declined to present their monetary items and notified us that they would not be responding to our proposals until we agree to their management rights article.

Observers were present throughout the day without incident.

April 2-7, 2025: TAs presented a list of outstanding articles, in addition to a large number of counter proposals to SMU by email in preparation for the next bargaining meeting:

Definition of Course
Time Off Requests (formerly “Leaves of Absence” and “Sick Leave”)
Layoffs
Arbitration
Job Postings
Harassment & Discrimination

As of April 7, TAs have responded to everything we can respond to. We will await responses from the employer on all outstanding articles.

March 25, 2025: SMU informed TAs that the article pertaining to the “Recognition and Representation” of the union is, in their view, a monetary item, and they were unwilling to discuss the article until all non-monetary items were resolved. This adds to a considerable number of outstanding articles which the employer claims are monetary, even though the articles have nothing to do with monetary compensation of employees.

The employer agreed to most of our counter-proposal on a grievance procedure, including that the informal discussion stage would no longer be mandatory for TAs. This means that TAs who are experiencing exploitation, harassment, discrimination, and other violations of the collective agreement will not be required to discuss their concerns with the alleged perpetrator before filing a formal grievance – a huge win for TAs! Exact timelines for the grievance procedure were still to be determined.

SMU proposed a new definition of “Day,” and TAs presented another counter proposal for “Discipline & Discharge” protections. We reviewed the outstanding proposals for which we were waiting on a response from the employer (including Employee File, Technological Change, Benefits, Leaves of Absence, Holidays, Layoffs, and Occupational Health and Safety). The employer stated that they would follow up on Employee File, Holidays, and Occupational Health and Safety; however, they stated they would not be granting TAs benefits, technological change protections, leaves of absence, or layoff protections because we are not full-time employees and are therefore ineligible (please note: there is nothing in the NS labour code that restricts us from including these items in the collective agreement; in fact, the SMU part-time faculty are not full-time employees but are granted many of these protections). Finally, we agreed that SMU and TAs would each present our monetary proposals at our next meeting on April 10.

Observers were present throughout the day without incident.

March 11, 2025: TAs withdrew all language that had to do with probationary periods because SMU said TAs were not subject to a probationary period. We also agreed to SMU’s corrected definition of “term,” and provided a minor addition to our “Recognition & Representation” article. Despite previously discussing the “Union Dues & Membership” article, SMU changed their argument and said that this was monetary because payroll manages member dues. Therefore, they declined to discuss further.

SMU also provided two counter proposals to TAs proposals on “Discipline & Discharge” and “Grievance Procedures” (countered on Jan 29). After review, it became clear that the Employer’s counters were almost identical to their original November 12 proposal. TAs were able to counter both within the afternoon, reiterating our January 29th position.

January 29, 2025: SMU continued to push to discuss definitions and their management rights, saying that they cannot engage with anything else until these are resolved. TAs disagreed, and continued to push to discuss more important issues (i.e., our bargaining priorities).

SMU declined our counter proposals from previous meetings:

Supervisor definition
Grievance procedure

At this meeting, SMU proposed the following articles:

Definition of “day”
Labour management committee
Definition of “term” (Note: this was a counter of their own proposal, as TAs had found errors with their original definition)

TAs countered the following articles from the Employer’s proposal:

Union dues & membership
Discipline & discharge
Labour management committee (Note: this is the article that SMU had proposed earlier in the day)

After six bargaining meetings, SMU agreed with our definition of Union. To date, this is the first (and only) of our proposals that they have agreed to.

We informed SMU that we were running out of articles to counter and that they would need to read our remaining proposals and come prepared to discuss for our next meeting on Feb 27 (one month away). SMU said they “could not promise” they would do so but would send us updates as they worked on articles.

Observers were present throughout the day without incident.

January 28, 2025: A password-protected proposal comparison chart was circulated to TAs via email. This chart shows SMUs initial proposals, TAs initial proposals, and the status of each article as of the January 17 bargaining meeting. TAs can email SMU TA VP Samantha (vp.smu.ta@cupe3912.ca) for access.

January 17, 2025: As agreed to on Jan 16, TAs spent most of the morning in the caucus room to review and revise articles to address the employer’s concerns. TAs agreed to the following components of the Employer’s proposal:

Preamble (Parties to the Agreement and General Purpose)

TAs proposed revised versions of the following components of the Employer’s proposal:

Definition of Supervisor
Grievance Procedures

The employer was not prepared with any counter-proposals for TAs. Observers were present throughout the day without incident.

January 16, 2025: SMU provided their response to the remaining Articles (21 – 26, Schedule B) in our proposal, rejecting them all. Again, it was clear they were reading our proposal for the first time at this meeting as their rationale was unclear and/or contradictory. TAs questioned SMU further about their rationale for rejecting to gain clarity. TAs informed SMU that we would need more time to discuss their response and the parties agreed to spend the next morning in caucus to prepare counter-proposals.

Observers were present throughout the day without incident.

January 10, 2025: TAs provided an overview of our responses to the employer’s proposal. TAs agreed to the following components of the Employer’s proposal, which were reasonable:

Definition of Academic Year
Definition of Bargaining Unit
Definition of Employer
Definition of Year
Use of gender neutral pronouns (they/them) throughout the collective agreement
No strikes/lockouts

Bargaining was temporarily stalled because SMU wasted 30 minutes on the use of “sign off sheets” – a very common and uncontroversial bargaining procedure to record tentative agreements to articles. After pressure from the TAs, SMU eventually provided responses to Articles 1 – 20 of the TA proposal and rejected them all, including our definition of union. It was evident SMU still had not read our proposal and their rationale for rejecting our articles were unclear and/or explicitly contradicted what we had written.

Observers were present throughout the day without incident.

January 9, 2025: For the first two hours of the meeting, SMU raised concerns about TAs having four observers (not members of the bargaining committee, but all TAs at SMU) attending to witness the negotiations. SMU felt that the presence of the observers created an uneven power distribution against SMU and requested we remove all but one observer to maintain “confidentiality of negotiations”. TAs declined to remove the observers, exercising our right to an open and transparent bargaining process per Nova Scotia legislation. At the persistence of the TAs, SMU eventually agreed to continue with bargaining for the rest of the day (one hour remaining); however, it became clear that SMU had not reviewed our proposal despite having two months to do so. We agreed to adjourn for the day to give SMU additional time to prepare a response.

November 12, 2024: First bargaining date with the employer. Proposed collective agreements were exchanged and four additional bargaining dates were scheduled. The November 13th bargaining date was cancelled.

November 5, 2024: Proposal Ratification Survey closed. TAs overwhelmingly voted in support of our priority article proposals:

Proposal Article 4: Harassment & Discrimination (96% in favour)
Proposal Article 8: Wages & Pay (96% in favour)
Proposal Article 11: Duties (91% in favour)
Proposal Article 18: Job Postings (87% in favour)

October 29, 2024: TAs were surveyed to ratify our proposed priority articles.

March 15, 2024: The negotiating committee was formed. Drafting of the collective agreement began.

February 22, 2024: Results of the bargaining priorities survey were released. Our top 5 priorities were determined to be:

Increased wages
Protection from exploitation
Clear role expectations
Support for international students
Protection from discrimination & harassment

January 8, 2024: TAs were surveyed to determine bargaining priorities for our first collective agreement.