On March 25, 2025, CUPE 3903 secured a meaningful win at arbitration! This decision defended and reaffirmed a member’s right to complete a contract when they are forced to take a retroactive medical leave from their studies due to an ongoing medical situation. This victory highlights what we can achieve when we refuse to back down! It also reveals how the York administration’s commitment to labour obstructionism causes sheer wastefulness, in addition to maintaining poor labour relations.
This case was a simple one of collective agreement interpretation. The provision at article 12.08.2 of the Unit 1 collective agreement reads:
Where a full-time graduate student holds a teaching assistantship and loses their full-time status after the commencement of their appointment and retains their position, they shall retain that position in Unit 1 for the duration of the appointment.
This language clearly lays out an exception to the rule that Unit 1 members must retain full-time enrollment. Against a common sense reading of the language, the Employer took the position that this provision only applies if someone loses their full-time status because they have been found in violation of academic honesty or the Student Code of Conduct, saying to the arbitrator that doing so is a “matter of humanity”.
Yet, to York, that care and accommodation should not extend to medical emergencies, health issues, and disability. The arbitrator notes, as part of their reasoning against York’s position, that: “a student [who violates academic integrity] would be able to continue to work in the University as a Teaching Assistant, potentially teaching other students or grading work, while someone who was compelled to relinquish their full-time student status for personal reasons, such as [medical reasons], would not.”
This is an individual grievance, which means it only applies in one specific case, but it is a hopeful sign for the policy grievance on the same topic which will be heard soon. It is worth celebrating this win! It shows that when members stick up for themselves, we can win and force back the employer’s arbitrary and discriminatory practices.
In this happy moment, however, we must not lose sight of the context that made this decision necessary. The employer’s actions meant that the member not only lost their contract, but also the related wages and access to health benefits, at a time when these were especially necessary. It took three and a half years, and tens of thousands of dollars, of York fighting this case before this decision was awarded. This is not unexpected: the employer denies grievances and forces simple matters to arbitration as a matter of routine, where once we would have been able to resolve disagreements in the grievance process or in mediation.
In a context where we are told that cuts to programs are necessary, where there is apparently no money for collective bargaining or deferred maintenance, the employer’s budget for grievances and arbitration appears to be limitless. This is public money that York University, under the leadership of President Rhonda Lenton and the guidance of AVP of Labour Relations Dan Bradshaw, threw down the drain to prevent a disabled graduate student from receiving a few thousand dollars for work that they were able to complete.
We won this one, and we will win more, whether that’s through legal processes, bargaining, or especially organizing to build our collective power. As we celebrate our wins, let us not forget that they are only necessary because York University would prefer to spend a small fortune of public money every year to prevent workers from accessing basic rights.