Highlighting the Revised Language in Part 4, Article 9.02 with respect to Reviews for Promotion for Tenured Faculty

In the last round of bargaining, the University and the Faculty Association agreed to make amendments with respect to promotional reviews for faculty members contained in Part 4, Article 9 of the Collective Agreement. We wanted to highlight the revised language and to clarify the intention of the parties in implementing these changes. Prior to these amendments, candidates would participate in mandatory periodic and non-periodic reviews for promotion. Where a non-periodic review resulted in a recommendation by the Dean, the review was deemed to be a periodic review for the purpose of determining the timing of the next periodic review. In seeking to change this language, the intention of the parties was to simplify the process by eliminating the need to monitor and formalize a candidate’s request for promotion.

The revised language in Article 9.02 now provides a tenured faculty member with the opportunity to request an optional review for promotion in any year. If a Head makes a recommendation for a promotion review and the candidate agrees, then the review will also take place. It is important to note that if the review results in the promotion being denied, another optional review cannot be conducted for three years. The Head, the Dean or the candidate may decide to stop the process of an optional review at any time. But if an optional review is stopped by either the Head or the Dean, then only the candidate will be able to stop the next optional review. If an optional review is conducted past the point of obtaining referee letters, then a review will not be conducted in the following year.