Interac North Collective Bargaining 14/07/2022

On Thursday evening we conducted our 21st session of Collective Bargaining. Due to a personal emergency, the session from June was delayed until July.
HAU was represented by Sapporo General Union. Interac North was represented by members from head office.

Firstly we reviewed the homework that the company was given in the previous session. We confirmed their responses and explained to the company representatives our opinions on their responses.

1. To check whether or not Interac negotiated with BOEs to provide ALTs with devices.
The company representatives told us that they assume that local boards of educations will provide ALTs with devices. The company representatives also told us that they will ask Interac North’s president if he had specifically enquired about devices with Sapporo BoE.

2. Why were the same Head Teachers rehired when the company advertised for new ones?
The company representatives explained that perhaps they were perhaps the best suited to the role. The company had previously sent the Union a list of 8 qualities that Head Teachers must possess. At no point in the application process were these qualities mentioned. The Union accused the company representatives of making it up. One union member was declined because he was late to the interview. This union member claims that he was only about 1 or 2 minutes late to join the online meeting due to his unfamiliarity with the program used to host online meetings. The Union believes this reason is unacceptable.

3. What financial issues caused the confusion regarding the new, increased amount of Head Teacher positions?
The company representatives explained that no new contracts had been secured by the company and therefore the number of employees had not changed. Therefore no new head teachers were required despite admitting that the current Head Teachers are “overburdened”.

Once those issues had been discussed, we moved on to the next topic. Last month’s Collective Bargaining session was delayed due to one person’s family emergency. One company representative was unable to attend and therefore the session could not commence.
The Union believes that one person’s attendance should not dictate whether or not Collective Bargaining should happen. The Union demanded that if this person could not attend in the future, a replacement must be provided.
The company representative explained that they are the designated representative for the company and is therefore irreplaceable. Because of that, this person promised that they would prioritise Collective Bargaining in the future.

After that, the Union took some time to set expectations. In the 20 sessions of Collective Bargaining, the company has not resolved a single issue. The company representatives attempted to refute this by saying that an agreement had been made regarding paid vacation days and Union member’s employment. This was not accepted as the company had intentionally excluded the Union from this discussion. In the Union’s opinion, this was solved by Interac North’s employee representative, not the Union.

The Union explained its understanding of Collective Bargaining. By this definition, the company is not bargaining in good faith.

By the next session (one week later) the company must be prepared to offer all Union members an offer for pay raises. Failing that, they must provide an acceptable reason and evidence for why they cannot.

The Union’s definition of Collective Bargaining can be found below.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.