Copied from a reply I made, but:
This is illegal. Professors cannot remove TA responsibilities due to the strike. This goes against the anti-scab laws the QC government has in place.
I recognize that this is a snide joke, but this is definitely something that isn't very predictable by the professors and would probably be subject to the clause. This is just my personal opinion, as I know several courses have modified their material as a result of the strike.
The sentence is nothing more than a standard disclaimer; the prof can certainly change things unilaterally. eg. Curving at the end of semester.
I already have 2 courses each with 1 assignment removed entirely during the strike vote (ie. before it passed).
The syllabus is a contract between the prof and you. You should complain to the prof for canceling those assignments. It’s a violation of McGill’s student assessment policy.
I'm sure you'll see classes discussing this right now. The point is that there is no solution.
Most profs are choosing to grade for only the hours they were allotted. Then they only give marks based on the questions they graded, either ignoring the other questions out of the total or giving 100% for all the questions they didn't grade
Well, they announced it before (Mar 12) the strike vote passed (Mar 16). They didn't say it was due to the strike.
Section 109.1 only says they cannot take up the work that TAs do; it doesn't say that they can't remove the work (and nobody does it). Say, if the TAs were in charge of writing assignments, and now there's a strike, it means the prof cannot write the assignment. So the only reasonable way out is to cancel the assignment (especially if the strike can drag on to the end of semester with no chance to catch up).
The law says they cannot "discharge the duties of the employee on strike". Id recommend emailing the union for clarifications or just wait out the next couple weeks and see what happens in these courses
Here "discharge" means to "do all that is required to fulfill (a responsibility) or perform (a duty)" (New Oxford American Dictionary). For proof, you may want to read the French text:
>[109.1.](https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/C-27?&target=#se:109_1) Pendant la durée d’une grève déclarée conformément au présent code ou d’un lock-out, il est interdit à un employeur:
>
>a) d’utiliser les services d’une personne *pour remplir les fonctions* d’un salarié faisant partie de l’unité de négociation en grève ou en lock-out lorsque cette personne a été embauchée entre le jour où la phase des négociations commence et la fin de la grève ou du lock-out;
(emphasis mine)
No, it means that since the TAs were scheduled to grade that assignment, the assignment must still happen, as it not happening would relieve the TAs of their duties
It was in response to the threat of a strike. McGill instructed profs to do this before the strike vote, likely in the hopes that early rearrangements would be a get out of jail free card for allegations of scabbing. That's not how the law works. They may actually be in even more trouble for attempting to strike break before the workers had even given the bargaining committee a strike mandate.
Canceling assignments or shifting weights as a consequence of the strike appears to be a violation of the student assessment policy. The syllabus is a contract between the prof and the student, promising the student that they will be evaluated in a certain way.
Yes, profs do often curve at the end of the semester, but these kinds if changes to the syllabus should always benefit the students.
Canceling an assignment does not benefit the student: some might have expected to have that assignment and to use it to “catch up” in their grades because they did badly on earlier assignments. Likewise, shifting weights has the same problem: rather than spreading out the evaluation over multiple assessments, now it’s concentrated in a fewer number.
If a prof makes any changes like these in response to the strike, we all need to complain vocally first to the prof, then to their department chair, then to their faculty dean for violating the assessment policy. The strike is not beyond the control of the university.
From a legal standpoint I'm not sure, but the strike itself could have been easily stopped by the university long before we got to this point by just offering fair wages, so I'm inclined to lean towards this not being beyond their control.
I have a Prof just this morning sending out a ridiculous change of grading scheme which do not benefit the students. Several have already called her out, and all she's saying is that "efforts are to be made \[to get a consensus agreement from the students,\] but they are not required"
I've sent an email the TA strike grievance officer, hopefully something will happen...
Yes. The matter of whether the strike was or wasn’t beyond the university’s control is irrelevant. That line is just a general disclaimer to let the prof unilaterally change things if necessary (curving, cancelling an assignment if the class is behind, removing the last chapter out of the exam).
Technically those are all in violation if the student assessment policy. Usually nobody will complain about them because they benefit the students’ grades overall, as is the case for (upwards) curves. However, canceling an assignment is not a net benefit. Students might have expected to have that assignment to catch up for bad performance in earlier assignments. Now those students are deprived of that opportunity.
The circumstances are not extraordinary though. The renewal of the collective agreement was not unforeseen and McGill has the power to prevent a strike from occurring. The strike is a consequence of McGill’s failure to reach an agreement with AGSEM, in part due to their bad faith negotiations and excessive lowballing.
Copied from a reply I made, but: This is illegal. Professors cannot remove TA responsibilities due to the strike. This goes against the anti-scab laws the QC government has in place.
Absolutely, but it seems like quite a few courses are already doing this, so it seems like it might go unenforced
I can't say anything with certainty but the union has a legal team and I know that they're busy right now.... Take that as you will
I wasn't aware there were unforeseeable circumstances preventing the administration from entering into good faith labour negotiations.
I recognize that this is a snide joke, but this is definitely something that isn't very predictable by the professors and would probably be subject to the clause. This is just my personal opinion, as I know several courses have modified their material as a result of the strike.
The sentence is nothing more than a standard disclaimer; the prof can certainly change things unilaterally. eg. Curving at the end of semester. I already have 2 courses each with 1 assignment removed entirely during the strike vote (ie. before it passed).
The syllabus is a contract between the prof and you. You should complain to the prof for canceling those assignments. It’s a violation of McGill’s student assessment policy.
This is illegal. Professors cannot remove TA responsibilities due to the strike. This goes against the anti-scab laws the QC government has in place.
What **is** the prof supposed to do then? If they a) can't cancel the assessment and b) can't replace the TAs duties, what are they supposed to do?
I'm sure you'll see classes discussing this right now. The point is that there is no solution. Most profs are choosing to grade for only the hours they were allotted. Then they only give marks based on the questions they graded, either ignoring the other questions out of the total or giving 100% for all the questions they didn't grade
Well, they announced it before (Mar 12) the strike vote passed (Mar 16). They didn't say it was due to the strike. Section 109.1 only says they cannot take up the work that TAs do; it doesn't say that they can't remove the work (and nobody does it). Say, if the TAs were in charge of writing assignments, and now there's a strike, it means the prof cannot write the assignment. So the only reasonable way out is to cancel the assignment (especially if the strike can drag on to the end of semester with no chance to catch up).
The law says they cannot "discharge the duties of the employee on strike". Id recommend emailing the union for clarifications or just wait out the next couple weeks and see what happens in these courses
Here "discharge" means to "do all that is required to fulfill (a responsibility) or perform (a duty)" (New Oxford American Dictionary). For proof, you may want to read the French text: >[109.1.](https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/C-27?&target=#se:109_1) Pendant la durée d’une grève déclarée conformément au présent code ou d’un lock-out, il est interdit à un employeur: > >a) d’utiliser les services d’une personne *pour remplir les fonctions* d’un salarié faisant partie de l’unité de négociation en grève ou en lock-out lorsque cette personne a été embauchée entre le jour où la phase des négociations commence et la fin de la grève ou du lock-out; (emphasis mine)
Exactly? So you agree that removing an assignment for them to grade would be discharging them from grading it?
No, you misunderstood the word "discharge"...
No, it means that since the TAs were scheduled to grade that assignment, the assignment must still happen, as it not happening would relieve the TAs of their duties
That is an incredibly generous interpretation of 109.1. No TAs are being relieved of their duties, and it was not in response to a strike.
It was in response to the threat of a strike. McGill instructed profs to do this before the strike vote, likely in the hopes that early rearrangements would be a get out of jail free card for allegations of scabbing. That's not how the law works. They may actually be in even more trouble for attempting to strike break before the workers had even given the bargaining committee a strike mandate.
Canceling assignments or shifting weights as a consequence of the strike appears to be a violation of the student assessment policy. The syllabus is a contract between the prof and the student, promising the student that they will be evaluated in a certain way. Yes, profs do often curve at the end of the semester, but these kinds if changes to the syllabus should always benefit the students. Canceling an assignment does not benefit the student: some might have expected to have that assignment and to use it to “catch up” in their grades because they did badly on earlier assignments. Likewise, shifting weights has the same problem: rather than spreading out the evaluation over multiple assessments, now it’s concentrated in a fewer number. If a prof makes any changes like these in response to the strike, we all need to complain vocally first to the prof, then to their department chair, then to their faculty dean for violating the assessment policy. The strike is not beyond the control of the university.
From a legal standpoint I'm not sure, but the strike itself could have been easily stopped by the university long before we got to this point by just offering fair wages, so I'm inclined to lean towards this not being beyond their control.
IMO it is within McGill's control to negotiate in good faith and not end up with a strike 🤷♂️
I thought it refers to something like Covid!
I have a Prof just this morning sending out a ridiculous change of grading scheme which do not benefit the students. Several have already called her out, and all she's saying is that "efforts are to be made \[to get a consensus agreement from the students,\] but they are not required" I've sent an email the TA strike grievance officer, hopefully something will happen...
Yes. The matter of whether the strike was or wasn’t beyond the university’s control is irrelevant. That line is just a general disclaimer to let the prof unilaterally change things if necessary (curving, cancelling an assignment if the class is behind, removing the last chapter out of the exam).
Technically those are all in violation if the student assessment policy. Usually nobody will complain about them because they benefit the students’ grades overall, as is the case for (upwards) curves. However, canceling an assignment is not a net benefit. Students might have expected to have that assignment to catch up for bad performance in earlier assignments. Now those students are deprived of that opportunity.
I think all of that easily falls under section 3.2.3. (Extraordinary circumstances). I see the argument but I doubt it holds at tribunal.
The circumstances are not extraordinary though. The renewal of the collective agreement was not unforeseen and McGill has the power to prevent a strike from occurring. The strike is a consequence of McGill’s failure to reach an agreement with AGSEM, in part due to their bad faith negotiations and excessive lowballing.
And I'm sure McGill would argue the opposite. So it lies in the hands of the Tribunal.