McMaster University Academic Librarians' Association

MUALA wishes to express our concern over the rising number of post-doctoral fellows associated with the University Library. The job descriptions refer to work, such as:

• instruction in library resources
• identifying current and future needs for a given department or faculty for the library
• assessing library resources, support, and facilities in support of a given department or faculty
• making recommendations to library administration for improvement
• promoting greater awareness of library resources, services and facilities for a given department or faculty
• promoting greater awareness within the library of a faculty’s teaching and research priorities
• providing support as needed to students and faculty within a given department or faculty

These descriptions of current post-doctoral fellow work, and job postings for post-doctoral fellows, use the same or similar language to current, and/or recent responsibilities outlined in MUALA Position Responsibilities Statements. These descriptions are indicative that librarian’s work is still relevant.

In the midst of repeated restructuring the library and the recent cuts to librarian numbers through a drastic reduction in the salary budget, such position and posting descriptions recognize the value of librarian’s work, but not of librarians. As a result, it is difficult to countenance the seeming replacement of librarians with post-doctoral fellows.

Given MUALA’s responsibility of promoting the welfare of academic librarians employed at the university, MUALA views this as yet another symptom of the erosion of the role of academic librarians on campus, and condemns these actions by the University Library administration.

Furthermore, MUALA is not opposed to working alongside post-doctoral fellows. In fact, possible collaborations and sharing of experiences strengthen the library, and the university. However, systematically replacing librarians with post-doctoral fellows is detrimental not only to the library, and the university, but also the entirety of the academic community.

MUALA formally requests the posting of the Digital Experience Librarian position as a continuing appointment MUALA position. MUALA believes that it is necessary to fill this position as a continuing appointment MUALA position, for the following reasons:

• as evidenced in the recent University Library reorganization, this position was deemed strategically important to the library in moving forward; and,
• the responsibilities laid out in the Position Responsibility Statement for this position directly effect the workload of other MUALA members.

This work desperately needs to be done.

Furthermore, McGill University, University of Western Ontario, York University, University of Windsor, Ryerson University, and University of Guelph all have comparable librarian positions. McMaster University itself has had two such positions. Both of which have been vacated due to resignations.

By working together with administration on a posting, and hiring process for this position, MUALA also sees this as a significant opportunity to improve labour relations and morale in the University Library.

Dear President Deane,

In your letter dated June 1, 2011 addressed to then MUALA President Rick Stapleton announcing
the review of the University Library, it was stated that, "While we do not normally seek approval by interested parties of the members of a review committee, it is our intention to strike a committee that is acceptable to MUALA, to the management team of the Library, and to the broader campus community. It is our sincere hope that the review team will then be able to advise us unencumbered by any concerns of bias." MUALA believed this to be a positive step forward in labour relations. Recent exchanges with the Provost, however, leave the union concerned about the direction taken in the implementation of this seemingly promising review process.

Our concerns have been raised with the Provost in a series of letters regarding the formation of the external reviewers committee.

The Provost’s June 1, 2011 letter stated that MUALA would be asked to provide nominations for external reviewers for the committee. However, there was no opportunity specifically given to MUALA. Instead a memo dated June 30, 2011 addressed to Deans and Library staff, was circulated. In response to this request, MUALA submitted three names.

Upon receipt of the nominations, the Provost proposed a selection process for external reviewers which stated, in an email dated September 9, 2011, that University Library administration and MUALA leadership would eliminate names in a turn-by-turn fashion, with each side being permitted to strike up
to three names. Between the University Library administration and the Deans, it appeared that twenty names were submitted for the committee. It was apparent that all MUALA nominees would be eliminated through the use of this process.

In MUALA’s response, dated September 16, 2011, we raised concerns regarding the overwhelming number of names submitted by the administration and Deans, and the implications of the selection process mentioned above. In good faith, MUALA proposed two alternative processes: one that would assure a MUALA nominee on the final list and one that would balance the amount of submitted names.

The Provost responded to MUALA’s objections in a letter dated October 7, 2011, stating that the University will be undertaking the review using guidelines normally used for academic programs, and that the proposed winnowing process for selecting names was fair. Our suggested alternatives were deemed inappropriate. At no time was the union shown review procedures that included reference to the process of elimination. Our most recent letter, dated October 17, 2011, sought to clarify the nature of how the committee is formed, and to raise our concerns over the discursive policy changes, including what is in the union’s opinion the significant departure from the McMaster Policy on Academic Program Reviews, section 5.4.1. Much to our disappointment, our letter went unanswered.

Rather than answering MUALA concerns, the Provost sent a letter to University Librarian Jeffrey Trzeciak and myself. The letter dated November 8, 2011 states that the Deans were presented with a list of names and their preferences were solicited. The University Library review will proceed once the review team is finalized. Effectively, MUALA has been removed from the selection process.

MUALA is greatly disappointed by this series of arbitrary changes in position around the formation
of the external reviewer committee for the University Library review. We had hoped this productive
and progressive idea of a University Library review would begin to address the many issues raised by MUALA. As previously stated to the Provost, MUALA believes that it is very important that we address the ways in which the review can be managed to preserve its potential value. Given that this review is being undertaken in a system rife with morale issues, it is all the more imperative that this review be managed in a way that is mindful of the context and specifically the role of the union and its members.

In the union’s opinion, the Provost’s departure from the established policy, and from your promise of an inclusive process, is a disturbing outcome.

Sincerely,

Nick Ruest
MUALA President

Agenda:

1. Follow up on action items from last meeting
2. Confidentiality around discussions and communications outside LMC
3. Librarian Classification Level Descriptions, Article 22.20
4. Union Release Time, Article 5.03
5. Update on Collective Agreement Publication
6. Scent-Free Meetings
7. ILL Requests for retired MUALA Librarians
8. Postdoctoral Fellowships
9. Digital Experience Librarian Position

Attendees: Jeff Trzeciak, Dale Askey, Liz Bayley, Laura Banfield, Nick Ruest, Ines Perkovic, Melanie Garaffa

In response to the morale issue action item from the September 6, 2011 Labour Management Committee meeting:

Action: Nick Ruest would bring forward to MUALA members the offer from Jeff Trzeciak to meet with individual librarians as an attempt to start rebuilding trust and discuss strategies for improving morale and communication. Nick Ruest will also solicit ideas to improve morale from the MUALA membership. Jeff Trzeciak will await Nick Ruest's response.

The MUALA membership passed the following motion in response:

MUALA members state that given that we have a long standing motion of non-confidence in the University Librarian, and given that we've undertaken a review of the University Librarian that we have submitted to the President and Provost, and given that the President and Provost have established a review of the University Library, we would prefer to defer any meetings with the subject of morale until the University Library Review is completed, afterwhich we anticipate meeting with the University Librarian in a structured and mediated format.

MCMASTER UNIVERSITY AND MUALA

LABOUR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

10:00 am – 12:00 pm

Mills L-206

Representing MUALA: Nick Ruest, Laura Banfield

Representing the University: Jeff Trzeciak (Meeting Chair), Liz Bayley, Dale Askey

Administrative Support: Melanie Garaffa

1.     Ground Rules for the Labour Management Committee (LMC):

Chair: Nick Ruest will serve as the co-chair for MUALA.  Co-chairs will chair alternate meetings.

Meeting Documents: Library HR Consultant will serve as administrative support to the Committee, and will prepare the agenda and meeting notes. Reasonable efforts will be made by both Parties to provide background information or a contextual summary as they relate to each agenda item in advance of the meeting to facilitate an informed discussion.

Communication:The Committee, when it reaches a decision to make a recommendation, will forward such recommendation to their respective principles.Where further discussion on issues raised at meetings is necessary with parties other than Committee members, the Committee will agree on what issues will be discussed and with whom the discussion will take place.

Mandate:the mandate of the LMC as laid out in Article 29.01 of the Collective Agreement is to “review matters of concern arising from the application of this Agreement, but will not discuss any matter related to the specifics of a current grievance.” Therefore it serves as a vehicle for joint discussion and consultation and exploration of possible solutions to mutual problems and concerns as they relate to the collective agreement.  In addition, the LMC can serve as a legitimate but not required step in resolving issues that might otherwise lead to formal grievances.

2.     Instruction and Workload:

MUALA raised concerns about the communication around the changes in instruction workload for some of its members.  In particular, there was confusion around expectations and priorities, especially in instances when position responsibilities had changed significantly with the new blended learning model. MUALA is also seeking clarification for those for whom their job hasn’t changed significantly, but their teaching load has.

MUALA also asked for clarification on the status of the liaison/21st Century Fluencies program, and proposed a meeting between library administration and MUALA members to clear up any misunderstandings, and move forward with messages to the McMaster community.

The University stated that instruction remains a priority.  The fall of 2011 will be a transition period for all librarians as Blended Learning is implemented and evaluated.  Supervisors will take this into account when completing the 2011-2012 goals with MUALA members. 

ACTION: In order to get a higher level uniform message about expectations, Jeff Trzeciak will discuss this issue with the Library Leadership Team at the September 7 meeting and get back to MUALA with suggestions.

3.     Professional Service and Activity Equity

MUALA expressed concerns around goal setting for the Professional Service and Activity components of Part 2 of the Annual Activity Report.  There is no clear explanation of the level of expectation for activity and service, particularly for librarians at different levels. MUALA proposed members meeting with supervisors more regularly to check-in with goals, and update goals if required. The rationale being that it would add more transparency to the performance review process in the spring, members would have a better understanding of where they are at, and that there would be no surprises at the end of the performance review process. 

The University agreed that there needed to be consistency and that there should be no surprises at the end of the year when achievement of goals was evaluated. 

ACTION:Jeff Trzeciak will meet with the leadership team to discuss performance and goal setting in order to establish consistency in application. Liz Bayley will be invited to these meetings so as to maintain alignment between the UL and HSL.

4.     Morale

MUALA expressed concern about the extremely low morale among its members. The major issues raised were the events leading up to unionization, the departure of talent from the University Library, poor communication in general from University Library administration, the physical and emotional demeanor of University Library MUALA members, the lack of recognition of the role of its members and the damage to McMaster’s reputation. 

The University acknowledged the morale problem, and pointed out that both sides needed to work on solutions.  By soliciting constructive ideas from MUALA members on how to improve morale, there is an opportunity to build a productive dialogue between MUALA members and Library Leadership.  

Jeff Trzeciak stated that he is committed to rebuilding the relationship between librarians and leadership. Jeff Trzeciak asked how it would be perceived if he offered to meet with all MUALA librarians individually in an attempt to break down the communication barriers and provide information about the direction of the library.  The purpose of the meeting would be for MUALA members to offer suggestions on how to improve morale and reduce communication breakdowns.

ACTION:Nick Ruest would bring forward to MUALA members the offer from Jeff Trzeciak to meet with individual librarians as an attempt to start rebuilding trust and discuss strategies for improving morale and communication. Nick Ruest will also solicit ideas to improve morale from the MUALA membership. Jeff Trzeciak will await Nick Ruest's response.

5.     Article 2 – Recognition and Article 22 – Appointment and Promotion

ACTION: Both parties agreed to defer this agenda item to the next meeting.

NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, November 22, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm.  Chair: Nick Ruest

[PDF version]

Agenda:

1. Ground Rules for Committee
2. Instruction and workload
3. Professional service and development equity
4. Morale
5. Article 2 - Recognition and Article 22 - Appointment and Promotion

Attendees: Jeff Trzeciak, Dale Askey, Liz Bayley, Laura Banfield, Nick Ruest, Melanie Garaffa

MUALA President Rick Stapleton has received a letter dated June 1 from McMaster President Patrick Deane and Provost Ilene Busch-Vishniac, in response to Rick’s letter of May 16 in which he expressed MUALA’s concerns over University Librarian Jeffrey Trzeciak’s recent presentation at Pennsylvania State University, among other things.
 
The letter states that the President and Provost are "convening a review of the University Library."  While they "have not typically conducted ... reviews of the Library ... this is an oversight that needs to be corrected."  They will establish a "review committee" that will "be consulting widely".  They will "meet with librarians (and other library staff) when they are on campus."  Their report "will be made public and shared through our governance system in a manner identical to that used for academic program reviews."  In addition, the President and Provost will solicit from MUALA "suggestions for external reviewers".  They go on to say: "While we do not normally seek approval by interested parties of the members of a review committee, it is our intention to strike a committee that is acceptable to MUALA, to the management team of the Library, and to the broader campus community.  It is our sincere hope that the review team will then be able to advise us unencumbered by any concerns of bias."
 
Rick replied positively to this letter on June 22, stating “MUALA will be pleased to participate in the academic self-governance procedure that you outline. We embrace this opportunity that gives voice not only to MUALA as a collective bargaining unit, but also to our individual academic librarian members.”

The review of the University Library is certainly good news.  It shows that MUALA’s efforts over the past few months, along with the support we have had from CAUT, faculty associations, and individual librarians, is paying off.

At the same time, however, academic librarians at McMaster continue to operate under challenging conditions. Last month, we lost 6 librarian positions, 5 of them through a “voluntary departure program” implemented as a result of budget difficulties, and are awaiting word from the library administration on a reorganization of the University Library. As well, the Division of Archives and Research Collections is currently undergoing a review initiated by the University Librarian, to be followed by a similar review of our Map Library. These are the very two departments that Trzeciak—in his Pennsylvania presentation--stated would next be headed by Ph.D.s or post-doctoral fellows, that is, not by librarians.

MUALA will obviously remain vigilant in this environment, and we continue to welcome support from other librarians, academic associations, and other interested parties.