THE UST Faculty Union has asked the Office of the Vice Rector for Academic Affairs to suspend new guidelines on extra pay for faculty members handling four subjects, claiming it contradicts the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
The new guidelines limit extra pay to “experimental” laboratory subjects, excluding combined lecture and laboratory courses.
Previous guidelines limited each faculty member with a full 24-unit load to three courses. An additional course load or fourth preparation merits an extra compensation depending on the faculty’s rank.
Faculty Union vice president for grievances Reynaldo Reyes said it was Oscar Diamante, president of the College of Science Faculty Club, who called the attention of the Union regarding the new scheme.
“According to the CBA, professors are entitled to another compensation when it comes to laboratory [courses] because it’s considered a different load,” Diamante said. “But according to the new guidelines, [non-experimental] laboratory courses cannot be considered as fourth preparation.”
Diamante said there might have been a misinterpretation of the CBA provision.
“In the CBA, it was said that experimental laboratory courses are considered fourth preparation. Maybe they got the idea of not including non-experimental laboratory [courses] there,” Diamante said.
Reyes said the new policy is contrary to the CBA because it would only consider the course with the lowest number of credit units as fourth preparation.
“It (implementing guidelines) should be nullified for contravening the CBA. All guidelines should conform or be amended to conform to the CBA,” Reyes said.
Diamante said there should be no distinction between experimental and non-experimental courses.
“They (non-experimental courses) should be considered [as a different load] because there is a separate preparation for that. It would be an additional burden for the professors,” Diamante said.
Diamante claimed some professors with fourth preparations were disappointed.
Reyes said the union was not consulted.
“It (implementing guidelines) was drafted by the academic affairs [office] alone when it should have been done with both the union and the University,” Reyes said.
Diamante said the lack consultation was also a violation of the CBA.
In a letter dated Feb. 15, the union requested Office for Academic Affairs to suspend the directive and form a committee of University and union representatives to draft new guidelines. The Academic Affairs has yet to reply. Diana Jean B. Evite
