REMEMBER the 6% increase announced by UST in Academic Year (AY) 2023-2024?
A portion of the tuition hike collections last academic year, amounting to P26 million, is now the subject of an industrial dispute between unionized faculty and the UST administration.
Both sides are deadlocked and unable to sign a new salary and benefits deal, called a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), covering the years 2021-2026.
As a result, the UST Faculty Union (USTFU) is set to file a notice of strike before government labor mediators today, March 25, kickstarting the process that could lead to a work stoppage by May 2.
One of the main sticking points, is the P26-million allocation for “rank upgrades” and “salary restructuring,” intended to adjust the ranks and salaries of faculty members with advanced degrees and research outputs but stuck in lower ranks.
The dispute is over where to source the amount. Union negotiators wanted the money to come from UST’s non-tuition hike collections, while management insisted it should be drawn from the faculty’s legally mandated 70% share in tuition hikes.
What’s the difference between the two fund sources? And why did the restructuring become a dealbreaker?
The Varsitarian revisited documents, statements, and other materials concerning the CBA to break down the dispute in this explainer.
Why UST insists on taking it from tuition hike collections
Under Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) Order 8 released in 2012, schools that raise tuition must allocate 70% of the increase to the salaries and benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel.
In AY 2023-2024, UST proposed a 6% tuition increase, justifying it as a means to “improve the ranks [of] particular sectors of academic staff to attract and retain exceptional talent,” according to Vice Rector for Academic Affairs Cheryl Peralta.
READ: UST admin says it will ‘continue to bargain in good faith’ in talks for faculty CBA
UST faculty stood to get P104.68 million from this hike, based on management’s computation. This is where UST wanted to source the P26-million allocation.
According to USTFU President Emerito Gonzales, management negotiators had refused to tap into funds other than the 70% share due to concerns over potential “technical malversation.”
“The UST Management Panel refused to budge on the P26-million rank upgrade. Their very reason is: that is what they told the students in the February 2022 consultation,” Gonzales recounted from a Jan. 31 meeting with the UST administration panel.
Gonzales revealed that the UST management even warned the union that if it rejected this scheme, the P26 million would be returned to students, a point that union negotiators “did not buy.”
The Varsitarian reached out to Peralta for comment but she has yet to respond as of posting time.
Why union wants it from UST’s non-tuition hike funds
During a March 10 general assembly, Gonzales explained the union negotiators’ position: they wanted the P26 million to come from UST’s other revenue streams, leaving the 70% tuition hike share intact.
The USTFU president argued that limiting economic negotiations only to the 70% share undermines the purpose of collective bargaining and shows that UST is unwilling to negotiate beyond the minimum required by law.
“To limit the negotiations on the economic provisions only on the 70% TFI (tuition increase) would mean that UST is not willing to negotiate outside what is provided for by law,” Gonzales said.
“Even without a union, we are entitled to that 70% by law. To refuse to negotiate beyond the 70% TFI is tantamount to rendering our CBA negotiations inutile, having nothing to negotiate beyond what is already provided by law.”
Gonzales claimed the USTFU, which commissioned two accountants to examine UST’s finances, found “tens of billions” of pesos in revenue that were “just sitting inside banks and investments.”
Because of the dispute on where to source the P26 million, the USTFU negotiated the amount down to P17 million coming from tuition hike collections, according to a March 10 statement issued by Peralta.
This reduction also led to the controversial P1.5-million allocation for Senior High School faculty, which they deemed insufficient.
UST has pointed out that all faculty stood to benefit from a nearly 8.5% increase in salaries and benefits, including backwages from August 2020.
READ: EXPLAINER: How much will UST profs get under proposed salary, benefits deal?
Apart from funds for the salary restructuring, Gonzales said UST was also unwilling to provide other benefits funded by non-tuition hike collections, except for some “spare change.”
Since this was one of the provisions deadlocked, union and management negotiators will have a chance to reboot discussions for the salary restructuring allocation, meaning the amount may be reverted to the original P26 million and the USTFU’s position on its source may be reconsidered.
No bargaining deal, no salary hike?
Before the deadlock, the USTFU had repeatedly asked the UST management to release teachers’ share in tuition hikes. However, the administration denied these requests, arguing that the distribution could only be done through a ratified CBA.
READ: Faculty union runs to CHEd after Rector denies partial release of tuition hike share
UST’s argument was based on a section of the CHEd memorandum that states that the 70% share must be used “as may have been provided for in the [CBA].”
UST has allocated a total of P220 million for the teaching staff from the faculty’s 70% share in tuition collections from AY 2021-2022 to AY 2023-2024, along with remaining allocations from AY 2020-2021, according to Peralta.
Union negotiators on March 14 demanded that the management stop holding “hostage in this labor dispute” the amount and fulfill its “moral and legal obligation” to release the share.
On March 7, CHEd issued a show-cause order directing Rector Fr. Richard Ang, O.P. to explain within 15 days UST’s compliance with the distribution of the faculty’s share in tuition hike proceeds amid delays in CBA negotiations.
READ: CHEd orders UST to explain compliance on distribution of faculty’s share in tuition hikes
The ball is now on CHEd’s court to determine whether UST’s argument — that a ratified CBA is required before releasing teachers’ share in tuition hikes — is correct.
The USTFU plans to raise the deadlock with the government on March 25 by filing a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, allowing it to sit down for further negotiations with UST management. Sydney Venice V. Berba and Amador Denzel T. Teston
