Bargaining Updates

Our last update

31 March, 2026

SUMMARY of articles in the COFAM Non-monetary Demand Book

What are COFAM’s Non-monetary Demands? In the context of collective agreement negotiations, non-monetary demands (sometimes referred to as “normative” demands) are those that have little or no financial impact on the employer but nonetheless provide for better transparency and fairness in a workplace where governance is shared and rules are known in advance.

 

After consulting with its member unions, COFAM submitted its non-monetary demands to the University on July 28th, 2025. These demands address issues that affect all COFAM members, whether they are tenure-track and tenured professors and librarians, contract academic staff, or other teaching staff. Listed below are the core issues that have been submitted to the University.

Preamble

The preamble is an introductory statement that describes the overall purpose of the agreement, emphasizing harmonious relations, and working conditions that are conducive to excellence in teaching, research, and service.

This article lists agreed-upon definitions of key terms used throughout the agreement, such as “Employees,” “Professors,” “Spouse,” etc.

Article 2 identifies the parties to the agreement—i.e., the University and the Union—and formally acknowledges that the Union is the sole representative of the employees in the bargaining unit. This is a codification / restatement of what is already legally obligatory.

This article provides an explanation of how the agreement is to be applied, the University’s management rights, fairness, and notifications about changes to policies or regulations.

 

Key demands
The University must not discriminate against unionized employees. To this end, it must

  • apply rules and regulations in a fair, reasonable, and equitable manner
  • in matters not covered by the agreement, treat unionized and non-unionized employees in the same manner
  • notify the Union of any proposed new or amended policies affecting employees
  • commit to treating employees fairly and in accordance with the law

Article 4 explains how and when Union dues are collected, and the University’s obligation to provide the amount of dues collected on tax slips.

This article sets out legally established rules for how the University and the Union will interact. In particular, the University may not make “side deals” with individual employees. Accordingly, the University may not negotiate directly with individual employees or with groups of employees without Union approval.

 

Article 5 also obligates the University to allow external Union representatives, such as legal counsel and representatives from professional associations such as CAUT and FQPPU, access to University premises to consult with Union officers or employees.

 

CAUT – The Canadian Association of University Teachers
FQPPU – Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’université

Article 6 lists University policies, regulations, and guidelines that cannot be changed except by mutual consent. This article also asserts, as per labour law, that where there is a conflict between the University’s regulations or statutes and the collective agreement, the latter takes precedence.

 

Key demands include

  • freezing a list of existing policies (e.g., tenure regulations, academic freedom, leaves, course evaluations) unless both parties agree to modifications
  • a commitment on the part of the University to fix non-conforming regulations as quickly as possible and to notify the Union in writing

Article 7 requires the University to share data with the Union relevant for monitoring the application of the agreement.

Article 8 sets out the process for resolving disputes.

 

Key demands include

  • replacing existing grievance regulations with a multi-step process
  • creating a Joint Labour Relations Committee (JLRC) to deal with evolving issues
  • seeking arbitration by mutual agreement or government appointment, including for matters deemed urgent

Article 9 protects employees’ rights to teach, research, and express opinions without institutional interference.

This article provides definitions of different positions held by academic staff.

 

Key demands

  • transition existing ranked contract academic staff (CAS) to the tenure stream
  • any academic staff member required to perform all three academic duties (teaching, research, service) is automatically a “Professor” as defined in this agreement.

Article 11 sets out the processes that must be observed for hiring, granting tenure, and promotion.

This article specifies rules for how and when employees may retire, including early, normal, late, and phased retirement. 

 

Key demands:

  • after age 55 and 5 years of service, employees may retire more or less whenever they wish to
  • early and phased retirement must be granted unless it would cause “severe disruption” as defined in this agreement
  • all retirement arrangements (including any reduced-load plan) must be negotiated with and agreed to in writing by the University, the Employee, and the Association
  • retirees keep the same human resources and pension support as active faculty

Article 13 lays out the procedures governing a disciplinary or administrative issue. These procedures are far more employee-friendly and replace all previous disciplinary regulations established by the University.

 

Key demands include

  • the University must provide a valid reason for taking an administrative measure
  • a disciplinary measure cannot be taken without just cause
  • the burden is on the University to demonstrate just cause
  • the University must follow the progressive steps outlined in the agreement
  • prior to any disciplinary measure being taken, there must be a meeting between the Employee, a Union representative, and the Dean
  • except in certain extreme circumstances, an employee cannot be suspended pending investigation

Article 15 details various paid and unpaid leaves available to employees, and includes information about eligibility, duration, pay, and conditions.

 

Key demands

  • Sabbaticals: eligible after 6 years of service with full pay; can be deferred by the University only if it would cause a “severe disruption” and for no more than 12 months
  • Maternity/Pregnancy Termination: up to 23 weeks with full pay (100% minus government benefits); includes paid spousal leave of 5 days paid
  • Adoption: 23 weeks with full pay (100% minus and government benefits); includes the option to share leave period
  • Parental: Up to 65 weeks unpaid (or 90% pay with government benefits); can be extended up to 52 more weeks unpaid
  • Leave of Absence: Unpaid, up to 2 years; granted unless severe disruption; extendable on compassionate grounds
  • Secondment: Special unpaid leave to work at another institution; terms to be agreed with the Union and may not unreasonably be denied
  • Political candidacy/Public Office: Unpaid leave for elections or appointments (up to 5+5 years); must be granted on request
  • Family Obligations: Unpaid full/half-time up to 1 year for caring; extendable to 104 weeks for a close relative’s serious illness
  • Short-Term Disability: Full pay for up to 6 months with medical proof; the University is responsible for paying fees associated with providing medical proof
  • Long-Term Disability: A disability leave of more than 6 months is governed by the University plan; if the University contests eligibility, full pay and benefits shall continue until a final arbitration decision
  • Court: Paid leave for jury/witness duty
  • Terminal: An employee who is denied tenure must be offered a final, twelve consecutive months of employment at full salary; option to negotiate a six- or twelve-month leave

More generally, except for those on terminal leave, employees on leave continue to be eligible for salary increases and are not under any obligation to be available to the University.

Article 16 protects employees’ right to privacy, especially regarding surveillance and personal data.

 

Key demands:

  • employees may not be surveilled without their consent
  • the Union must be given access to logs of surveillance of physical areas
  • employees have the right to access any information collected about them by the University
  • the University may, in exceptional circumstances, have strictly limited access to an employee’s devices and network accounts, but the University is obligated to notify the Union of any such instances
  • the University must ensure that personal information, including medical information, remains confidential

This article deals with the intellectual property rights on works created by an employee. Intellectual property rights belong to the employee who created the work in question.

This article seeks to ensure that the agreement between the University and the Union is publicly accessible.

 

Key demands:

  • the University must post a bilingual electronic copy on its website
  • the University must notify new hires of the existence of the agreement and send them the appropriate link

This article establishes who the Union officially communicates with in University administration, and what means of communication may be used.

Article 20 codifies / restates what is already legally obligatory. It prohibits discrimination and obligates the University to provide a safe working environment.

This article commits the University to providing an accessible workplace for disabled employees, and to meet its obligations under the law.

 

Key demands

  • Identify, prevent, and remove barriers faced by employees with disabilities
  • take steps that meet the legal duty to accommodate employees with disabilities
  • pay fees associated with any request on the University’s part for medical proof
  • agree to interim accommodations when medical documentation is not immediately available
  • provide priority parking for employees with disabilities
  • seek expert advice on an appropriate accommodations plan

This article demands that McGill advance substantive equality for historically underrepresented groups.

 

Key demands:

  • remove systemic barriers to employment and advancement
  • correct inequitable working conditions and compensation
  • allocate equitable workloads, service loads in particular
  • share data collected and reports submitted
  • consult with the Union about EDI policies

Article 23 recognizes the historical impacts of slavery and colonialism, and the extra, often uncounted, community/service contributions of Black and Indigenous Employees.

 

Key demands

The University must

  • allow workload adjustments for Designated Employees
  • redirect service obligations to benefit Black and Indigenous students and communities
  • count such community service as part of research-creation or teaching
  • reduce teaching loads by up to one 3-credit course
  • value Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous-based methods for knowledge transmission, teaching, and scholarship
  • properly value Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous-based methods in relation to hiring, tenure, and promotion

Article 24 asserts the rights and responsibilities of employees to participate in collegial governance through representation on the University’s boards and committees.

 

Key demands

In addition to having appropriate representation on the Board of Governors, Senate, and Faculty Councils, the Union demands representation on Advisory Committees and Evaluation Committees for the Provost and Principal and on the Staff Benefits Advisory Committee.

Our previous updates

20 January, 2026

Update from the bargaining table: Response from McGill to Article 10, Job Classifications

COFAM is calling for an end to precarious faculty employment by demanding conversion of existing ranked contract academic staff to the tenure stream. If successful, this improvement in working conditions would be without precedent in Canada. 

 

McGill has two categories of ranked academic staff: contract academic staff (CAS) and tenure-stream academic staff. With few exceptions, both CAS and tenure-stream faculty hold full-time appointments; however, CAS are significantly worse off in terms of pay, hiring benefits, length of contract, and termination. In July 2025, COFAM officially proposed a change to this inequitable system during negotiations with McGill with the aim of moving CAS into the tenure stream and thus providing them with the same level of job security as their tenure-stream colleagues.

 

On January 20, COFAM met with McGill to continue bargaining on this issue. The University’s response to COFAM’s demands as set out in Article 10 is as follows: McGill proposes to create what it calls a “teaching-intensive” stream, but this option will be open only to professors who are already tenure-track/tenured, or those who are hired into an available “teaching-intensive” position. A professor who holds a teaching-intensive position will have their research responsibilities and expectations reduced accordingly. The CAS category will remain, and there will be no automatic conversion of current CAS.

 

Although this proposal falls short of COFAM’s demands, the creation of a teaching-focussed tenure-track position is a step in the right direction, and COFAM looks forward to robust negotiations moving forward. These developments will be of interest to our colleagues in the Faculty of Science, who will soon be joining the bargaining table.

 

Watch this update video from Kyle Kubler, a Faculty Lecturer in the Faculty of Arts. 

19 November, 2025

The bargaining meeting held on November 19th, 2025, consisted of a review of McGill’s responses to the articles listed below

  • Article 3: Application of the Agreement
  • Article 5: Relations Between the Association and the University
  • Article 7: Information
  • Article 8: Disagreements and Grievance
  • Article 16: Privacy and Personal Files
  • Article 18: Electronic Copy of the Agreement 
  • Article 19: Correspondence and Notices
  • Article 21: Disability Inclusion and Universal Accessibility
  • Article 22: Employment Equity
  • Article 24: Governance

17 November, 2025

There was no formal agenda for this meeting. Discussion ranged over a variety of articles. Details can be found in the full minutes of this meeting. The two highlights of the meeting are as follows:

 

  1. Addition of AMLAS to the COFAM bargaining table

 

The  McGill team raised concerns about the faculty-specific nature of many of the additions made to the demand book by the Association of McGill Librarian Academic Staff (AMLAS). According to the McGill team, there was an understanding that the COFAM demand book would be limited to general matters applicable to all faculty associations.

The COFAM team responded that, in their view, the understanding was not that all content must be applicable to all associations, but that the COFAM demand book would include matters that go beyond a single faculty. COFAM listed many aspects of the demand book that are not applicable to every faculty association and to which no objections have been raised.

The McGill team noted that it was not attempting to exclude AMLAS from COFAM but rather to determine what is the right bargaining table for certain aspects. They acknowledged that they had only quickly reviewed the additions earlier that morning.

 

  1. Article 10, Job Classifications

 

At the November 3rd bargaining meeting, the McGill team advised that they had hired an analyst to cost out the conversion of ranked contract academic staff (CAS). This exercise is not expected to be complete until the end of December, 2025. At today’s meeting, COFAM asked the McGill team to be more specific about the monetary concerns mentioned on November 3rd. The McGill team responded that they are not ready to do that yet. They will need the costing analysis in order to do so. Members of the McGill team expressed frustration with this seemingly circular response.

 

The McGill team was then asked whether there is any objection in principle to the conversion of CAS. They responded that they are unable to answer that question. The question was rephrased: Would it be accurate to tell members that, assuming that there are no unreasonable financial barriers, McGill will agree to the conversions. The rapid answer was “no.” It was pointed out that if there is a philosophical or ideological objection to converting CAS to tenure-track and tenured appointments, we should not have to wait six months to find out.

3rd November 2025

McGill’s Most Recent Response to COFAM’s Demand Book

  • On Wednesday, October 29th, the McGill team sent its most recent counter-proposal, which was again limited to only a few articles, none of them especially substantive. At the same time, they requested that the November 3rd meeting and five other meetings scheduled for November be cancelled to allow them time to read and respond to more articles prior to the first meeting in December (the 11th).
  • It was agreed that the November 3rd meeting would not be cancelled and that some of that time will be used to discuss McGill’s request.

 

There was no formal agenda for this meeting. 

 

a) New Members of the COFAM Bargaining Team

  • Michael David Miller and Gen Gore introduced themselves as representatives of the Association of McGill Library Academic Staff (AMLAS). 

 

b) COFAM’s Response to McGill’s Request to Cancel the Remaining November Meetings

  • Sibel Ataogul informed the McGill team that COFAM’s preference is not to cancel any of the November meetings and to continue bargaining.
  • There is particular concern among the COFAM membership that McGill has not yet responded to Article 10, Job Classifications, which details the conversion of CAS to tenured and tenure-track positions.

     

c) Article 10, Job Classifications

  • Shakir Ladha noted that Article 10 is the reason why they had requested cancellation of the November meetings: Article 10 involves a major restructuring of the University; the McGill team needs time to consider all the ramifications, including the impact on University expenditures such as salary, pensions, and sabbaticals. In fact, they see Article 10 as more monetary than non-monetary, so they would want to see COFAM’s monetary demands before a decision can be made about Article 10.
  • They have hired an analyst to assist them in costing out COFAM’s proposal. The analyst has indicated that they will need at least two months (November and December) to complete this work. 

 

d) Integration of Librarians into COFAM

  • COFAM’s proposal has been amended to reflect the inclusion of AMLAS in the confederation of faculty associations at McGill.

 

e) Agreements and Next Steps

  • The November meetings will remain on the books.
  • COFAM will endeavour to submit the modified demand book to McGill by the end of this week or early next. 
  • The meeting scheduled for November 17th will go ahead. The following items will be on the agenda:
    • COFAM’s response to McGill’s most recent counter-proposals. 
    • The McGill team’s response to amendments to COFAM’s original proposal resulting from the certification of AMLAS and their decision to join COFAM.
  • COFAM has indicated that it expects to have an answer to Article 10 by the beginning of December.

7 October, 9 October, 2025

The COFAM (Confederation of Faculty Associations of McGill) bargaining team met with the administration’s representatives on the 7th and 9th of October to continue negotiations over the non-monetary demand book. While the administration did not have a complete demand book to return to us, they did accept several of our articles as written, as well as present several counter-proposals. On Oct 7th we primarily focused on discussing the counter-proposals. Oct 9th was reserved for a general discussion about several of our previously provided proposals, as admin was looking for more information from us before providing official counter-proposals.

14 July, 6 August, 7 August, 2025

Moving forward, COFAM’s secretary, Sue Laver, will be sending out a bargaining update to COFAM members after each session, but for now we will offer an abridged one to cover the three sessions we had over the summer (July 14th, August 6th and August 7th). We offer a more detailed account below, but briefly, the administration has not yet provided us with counter-proposals to our initial demand book but they did propose a model of bargaining behind closed doors that we ultimately rejected.

 

The main point of discussion for these sessions was over the terms of bargaining moving forward in the Fall. This is because, although we sent administration our first book of non-monetary, COFAM demands on July 28th, they did not come back to us with any counter-proposals. The discussion over terms of bargaining consisted of two main points: course releases and open bargaining.

 

For the former, it is common practice for those on executive committees and bargaining committees to get some type of work release for union work. The McGill administration offers this to other unions on campus, and they even already offer it to MAUT, which doesn’t bargain. As a confederation of four certified unions, we asked for 16 course releases for the year, with the proposed cost-sharing model admin uses with MAUT.

 

This proposal was initially rejected by admin, who suggested instead “service releases”: 2 per year per faculty union. We explained how logistically challenging this would be but also how it would be unfair to our colleagues who would have to pick up the extra service work we would be released from (without any extra pay). We were eventually able to negotiate admin to agree to 6 course releases for the entire year, but this came with the caveat of the second main issue: open bargaining.

 

Admin has been clear since the first session that they want bargaining to be a private affair. They asked us not to post about bargaining on social media, not to talk to students about bargaining, and not to bring non-bargaining committee members to observe bargaining. This is closed bargaining. As we are all bargaining for the first time as new unions, we believe bargaining should be open. We want the right to bring members into bargaining if they would like to see how it works, or learn more about what is going on. We don’t want to restrict how members can talk about bargaining with the press, online, or with students. 

 

During the last bargaining session, it was clear that admin’s offer of 6 course releases would only stand if we agreed to closed bargaining. We rejected this offer, thereby ending the negotiations, as it conflicted with our commitment to an open bargaining process.

 

Our next dates for bargaining are Oct 7th and 9th; we expect that admin will have counter-proposals to share with us so we can continue working toward settling our university-wide non-monetary demands before moving on to the monetary ones.

Powered by
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
Powered by