PUBLIC MARKS with tag ""wade maclauchlan""

A grievance settlement between UPEI and its faculty is being described as a “victory” by the faculty association, but it is being described as “not a substantive change” by the university. The issue centres on who owns intellectual property, the ideas and research being carried out by the professors and researchers at UPEI. Wayne Peters, the president of the UPEI Faculty Association, says the university has agreed to include the faculty association in all third-party funded research contracts and grants that could lead to the development of intellectual property. “This grievance was never about who owned the (intellectual property) in the first place, that was not the primary issue,” Peters told The Guardian. “The issue was more about the union’s involvement in processes like this as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for its members.” The initial grievance centred on a decision by the university to enter into discussions with ACOA regarding a research project that affected the faculty association’s collective agreement, without including the union. The university maintained it had ownership of the intellectual property. The faculty association felt the university had side-stepped the union, which has been in place for the past three years. “The big victory in this for the union is that there is a very strong recognition by the university of the union’s role in representing its members on issues that are clearly part of the collective agreement and intellectual property policy is one of those issues,” he said. But Katherine Schultz, vice-president of research and development at UPEI, described it as an “evolving” process as the university and the union work through its 100-page collective agreement, signed three years ago. She admits it will allow the faculty association to have a greater role in the “internal discussions.” “But it’s not a substantive change in the way our researchers work with partners in the community, with the private sector, with government agencies,” she said. Schultz said it will have no impact on the students. Peters said the faculty association can now “rewrite history” because it can now review all 100 contracts signed between the university and private funding partners since 2004. It also remains unclear now as to who would benefit if an idea is commercialized. For example, if a researcher finds a cure of a deadly disease like cancer, who benefits? Peters maintains it would be the faculty member while the university says it’s difficult to answer that because it could be several partners, from funding partners to faculty members to the university. Last year, the union walked off the job trying to secure its first agreement with the university. The intellectual property grievance was filed in 2005 and was not part of last year’s dispute.