The New University

Therefore, I am appalled by what I see as lack of integrity (in form of equivocation and omission) in the recent emails from our administrative faculty leaders regarding suspension of health benefits for those who chose to exercise their negotiated right to honour CUPE 1975 picket lines and be subject to loss of pay, but face no other disciplinary action.

I understand that the Employer is using obscure language from the faculty Long Term Disability Plan to interpret not crossing picket lines as an "approved leave of absence without pay", under which circumstances, members must pay their own benefits. This is slick lawyering, but I don’t know how to describe it ethically.

As the academic leader of the University, and as someone who earned a good deal of trust during the last round of negotiations, I am asking you to give plain answers, in writing, to the following:

1. Has this reasoning been used by the University, regarding the Health Benefits?

If this is so,

2. Why was it not elaborated upon in the letter yesterday from the Vice-Provost, and today's letter from the VP Finance?

3. How do you personally feel about this sort of loopholing? Do you believe it will be helpful for building the atmosphere of trust you were seeking?

Finally, I have a request on a personal note. I have four dependents. The link on the University's FAQ regarding Health Benefits appears to be broken. I phoned benefits on Monday, who referred me to an answering machine, and that call has not been returned.

I would like to state that I have written this letter relatively quickly, and without legal advice. Because this makes me vulnerable to attacks from the HR lawyers, I ask for an opportunity to clarify or correct it as necessary.

Sincerely,
Eric Neufeld