September 2010
The information below is of great importance to all members of the University community.
Academic physicians in the Faculty of Medicine, also known as Geographic Full Time Equivalent Positions or “GFTs”, have recently been presented with a draft of an individual contract that they would be expected to sign in order to continue their work as teachers, researchers, and medical practitioners in the Faculty. These individual contracts, once finalized, would be with an entity called the “Joint Operating Division”, which is a collaboration of sorts between the University of Manitoba and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA). The stated purpose of this new arrangement is to improve recruitment and retention by turning the GFTs into independent contractors. The draft contract also severely curtails the academic freedom of these academic physicians, lays unacceptable claims to their Intellectual Property, requires them to cooperate with the JOD to recruit and retain academic clinicians, and provides no real protection for recourse should the JOD decide to terminate them. Needless to say, there needs to be major changes in this draft contract if our colleagues in medicine are going to have protections anything like what exist for academics covered by the UMFA Collective Agreement. The draft contract can be accessed by clicking on this link: JOD Draft Agreement.
The GFTs are not unionized but have some representation from Doctors Manitoba (formerly the Manitoba Medical Association) and from the University Medical Group (UMG) which has a number of roles, including assisting the GFTs with billings and representing this group at the University’s Staff Benefits Committee. It is Doctors Manitoba that has negotiated with the University and the WRHA to develop the draft contract.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and its standing committee on Clinical Academic Staff have been closely monitoring these developments. CAUT is extremely concerned about the problematic provisions of the draft contract. CAUT’s comments can be accessed by clicking on this link: CAUT Comments. It is anything but reassuring that the University of Manitoba administration should have been a party to this draft agreement. Though members of the Faculty of Medicine are not Members of UMFA, it is a matter of deep concern that our colleagues should be subjected to such unacceptable provisions. For UMFA Members this is the occasion for registering the importance of having a Collective Agreement that protects the rights of Faculty and that cannot be unilaterally changed by the University administration.
Some background information follows.
History
The GFTs have, to date, held academic appointments with the University and medical staff appointments with a regional health authority. The amount of compensation received from each party has varied according to the individual contracts signed by the academic physician and there has also been some variation in the duties and terms, with some GFTs being offered tenured appointments.
Following a report on “The Working Environment of Academic (GFT) Physicians” commissioned by the University and the WRHA, a working group was set up to plan and recommend possible reforms to the provisions under which GFTs work. In March 2008, a report was ready and apparently recommendations were made for the formation of a Joint Operating Division, standardized physician contracts, and an alternative funding plan which would provide block funding to individual physicians in lieu of the current fee for service. Presentations of the report were duly made to the University Senate and Board of Governors.
At the June 18, 2008 meeting of the University’s Board of Governors, an Executive Summary was distributed that provided some detail on how the Joint Operating Division (JOD) would function. Without going into details, it was clear that the WRHA would have a great deal of control over the academic physicians and that whatever protection University policies provided to the academic physicians would be greatly reduced. A draft contract dated July 30, 2008 illustrated just how precarious the status of the academic physicians could be under the JOD. For example, the draft contract provides that the “…Division, at its sole option may terminate this Agreement with immediate effect, without prior notice, if the Division pays you the equivalent of three months compensation…”. The 2010 draft contract states that, “The JOD may terminate this Agreement at any time by paying to the Academic Clinician a reasonable termination payment to offset the reasonable costs and business losses associated with the disruption to the Academic Clinician’s business.” And it is also clear that, by the terms of the 2010 draft contract, termination cannot be submitted to arbitration.
At the June 25, 2008 meeting of Senate, the Dean of Medicine, then Dean of Medicine Sandham presented the plan for the JOD, emphasizing that these physicians would work as independent contractors and would not be employees of the University. He also stated that the GFTs have not previously nor will they now have tenure. The latter part of this statement is inaccurate. As of March 26, 2009, 29 GFT physicians had tenure. When President Szathmary was questioned about the concern that academic freedom was threatened through this agreement with the WHRA, she stated that the affiliation agreements with the WRHA all protect academic freedom. In fact, the Master Affiliation Agreement makes no mention of academic freedom.
There were also claims made at this meeting of Senate that as these academic physicians would maintain “nil” appointments with the University, they would be governed by and have rights under University policies. The reality is that if an academic physician employed by the proposed Joint Operating Division could be terminated for any or no reason, then University policies on termination for just cause would have no effect at all. Remember, that academic physicians employed by the JOD would not be considered employees of the University. De facto, there would be no academic freedom.
The CAUT Clinical Faculty Committee, composed of eminent senior clinical faculty from medical schools across Canada met on August 25, 2008, reviewed the JOD project proposal and unanimously passed a motion stating that it was gravely concerned that the JOD proposal would deprive physician academics of the basic rights to academic freedom that all faculty members ought to have. Moreover, they claimed that if the proposal were implemented it would make it more, not less, difficult for the University of Manitoba to recruit and retain academic physicians.
In September 2008, CAUT Executive Director Jim Turk wrote to John Laplume, CEO of what was then Manitoba Medical Association, communicating the serious concerns that CAUT and the CAUT Clinical Faculty Committee had about the negative effect of this proposal on clinical faculty at the University of Manitoba. He offered the assistance of CAUT to the MMA in protecting the best interests of the clinical faculty. In February 2009, with the assistance of UMFA, CAUT organized a meeting of GFTs which was attended by Jim Turk, CAUT President Penni Stewart, MMA Executive Director John Laplume, and representatives of UMFA.
This spring, a series of meetings were set up with groups of GFTs so that Doctors Manitoba (formerly the MMA) could present the draft individual contract to them and receive feedback. The GFTs raised concerns about academic freedom, about their ability to practice medicine in Manitoba if their contract with the JOD were terminated, about their intellectual property, about whether the Canada Revenue Agency would consider them independent contractors, about benefit plans including pension, about restrictions on their ability to raise concerns publicly about health services, about their vulnerability to WRHA actions especially if the University were a secondary player in this new arrangement, and about the lack of protection again unfair dismissal. The representatives from Doctors Manitoba said that they would consider these concerns but that this was a negotiation process and the other parties had provisions that they wanted in the contract.
Negotiations on this matter are still in process and it is unclear what their outcome will be. UMFA is posting the CAUT letter and related documents because it believes that this is information that our colleagues in the Faculty of Medicine need now. Though UMFA does not represent the GFTs in the Faculty of Medicine, it is committed to supporting the provision of full protection for academic freedom and professional autonomy for all faculty members at the University of Manitoba, whether or not they are Members of UMFA.
If you have further questions about this, please contact Linda Guse at 474-8282 or lguse@umfa.ca.