Carleton University, striking support staff to meet with outside mediator
Carleton and its striking support staff have agreed to a one-day meeting with an outside mediator.
But even as news of the planned Wednesday sit-down emerged, tensions were simmering Monday over what the workers’ union called bombshell revelations about the pension plan that’s at the heart of the strike, now in its fourth week.
The union local representing the roughly 850 striking workers says a review of amendments made to the plan has uncovered some “subtle manipulations” dating back to 2003.
Those amendments, passed by the board of governors’ pension committee, established a special account to record pension contributions, to fund plan deficits and to create a mechanism for the university to recover all the payments, with interest, if the university is in a pension surplus position, said Kevin Skerrett, senior research officer and pension specialist with CUPE.
That account now has more than $102 million in it — and is growing by between $7 million and $10 million a year, Skerrett said.
“This has hit our members like a bombshell,” he said. “The university’s position has been ‘You can trust us.’ ... Any measure of trust is now gone.”
On Friday, CUPE and its lawyers filed a complaint with Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), which oversees the regulation of pension plans in the province.
The 2003 amendment removed a key protection in the plan known as the “non-reduction guarantee,” which ensured that pensions being paid to retirees could be increased, but would never fall below the amount promised and paid at retirement, CUPE argued.
In a statement, Carleton said all amendments have been registered with and accepted by the commission with the aid of expert legal and actuarial advice, “acting in the best interests of plan members.”
Carleton added that CUPE filed a similar complaint to the commission in 2010 in an attempt to overturn recommendations by the pension committee.
“Now CUPE is attempting to revisit decisions that are 15 years old,” said the university. “Carleton will respond to this complaint with (the commission) directly. We are confident it has no merit.”
The university said the pension plan amendments follow an open and transparent process. All amendments are reviewed and studied by the pension committee, which includes 50 per cent union representation, including a member of CUPE 2424. “Furthermore, all plan members are notified of plan amendments in writing and are advised of their right to contact FSCO. All amendments are publicly registered with the FSCO.”
According to Carleton, the “bookkeeping” account ensures that the amounts paid by employees for special contributions and the employer’s special payments are tracked and offers the pension committee a tool in the event that the pension plan achieved a surplus in the future.
“The pension committee first would have to declare a surplus and secondly would have to study the matter with expert advice.”
Possible options if there is a surplus would include considering improvements to benefits and/or contribution holidays for employees and the employer. Carleton follows the recommendations made by the pension committee, said the university.
Administrative, technical and library staff are currently off the job at Carleton, creating myriad frustrations for students. Calls about student aid have been unanswered, some science and engineering labs have been cancelled for safety reasons, and pickets have slowed down access to campus.
CUPE 2424 president Jerrett Clark said the union is prepared to negotiate, but that the pension review has strengthened the striking workers’ resolve.
Of affected students, he said: “We hope they understand that we wouldn’t be doing this if our futures weren’t at stake.”
The information gathered in the review has implications for others who belong to the Carleton pension plan, said Root Gorelick, president of the Carleton University Academic Staff Association, which represents professors. His members are also in negotiations with the university and are also concerned about what he called opaque decision-making and a lack of consultation.