Several AUFA members have queried how AU’s proposal to de-designate professionals, academic coordinators, and deans/associate deans would affect these members.
It is very difficult to provide a definitive answer because there are many variables as well as some unknowns (e.g., how AU would behave after de-designation). Still, we can make some educated guesses. This blog post presents our best estimate (given the information available) about the likely effects of de-designation on de-designated AUFA members.
While it is important for members to be aware of the possible consequences of de-designation, it is equally important to highlight that de-designation is not yet a fait accompli. The university’s proposal is extremely concerning, but AUFA members have successfully pushed back against other concerning proposals from AU in the past (e.g., imposing company doctors and gutting our discipline language).
The AUFA executive and the Membership Engagement Committee is committed to fighting AU’s latest union-busting proposal. The AUFA executive will be exploring options in the legal realm (e.g., appealing any decision to the Labour Board), but litigation is no substitute for an active and engaged union membership. Over the coming months, AUFA members will be called upon to participate in collective efforts to prevent the imposition of this proposed policy.
The Big Picture
If you are de-designated, you would continue to have an employment relationship with AU. You may be represented by a different union or you may become a non-unionized employee.
Your substantive rights as set out in the AUFA collective agreement (e.g., wages, leaves, and benefits) are unlikely to change in the short term. AU may subsequently seek or impose changes to your wages and benefits. It will be easier for AU to impose changes if you are a non-unionized employee.
Your continued access to procedural rights (e.g., the discipline process, probationary and reclassification, and workload appeals) may continue, may continue with changes, or may be discontinued, depending upon the specific right and whether you become a member of another union or become non-unionized. AU may also subsequently seek or impose changes to your procedural rights. It will be easier for AU to impose changes if you are non-unionized employee.
Professionals
We believe the de-designation of professional staff would result, at least initially, in professionals becoming non-unionized (i.e., excluded) employees. If professionals become non-unionized as a result of being de-designated, they would then have individual contracts of employment operating under the common law.
It is likely that these contracts would initially contain existing provisions around wages, benefits and other entitlements. They would also contain some of the procedural rights set out in the collective agreement. It would be up to individual employees to enforce those rights (i.e., pay for their own lawyers) if the employer violated the new individual contracts or sought to impose discipline or terminate them.
Under the common law, the employer could propose changes to the contracts of employment. For example, AU could seek to eliminate sabbaticals or reduce layoff notice in order to reduce costs. AU would need to offer to some consideration (i.e., something of value) in exchange for the contractual change. But what AU offered would not necessarily have to be of much value. For example, AU could offer a few extra days of vacation this year in exchange for eliminating sabbaticals (which are worth about 15% of wages).
If the individual workers did not accept the proposed change, the employer may be able to terminate the workers’ employment by providing whatever termination provisions existed in the contract. This dynamic reflects that the job protection and bargaining power of individual employees is weaker than those of unionized employees. Indeed, this loss of power may be one of the attractions to AU of de-designating professionals.
While we believe the most likely scenario following dedesignation is that professionals would become non-unionized employees, it is possible that professionals might be rolled into the AUPE bargaining unit by the Labour Board during the litigation around de-designation. If this was the case, AUPE would “take over” the AUFA collective agreement for professionals. Subsequently, AUPE would need to either negotiate a new agreement for professionals or incorporate professionals into the existing AUPE agreement.
It is also possible that professionals might subsequently be organized by another union. In this case, the other union would then need to negotiate a new collective agreement from scratch.
In either of these cases (AUPE or other union), professionals whose job titles are director or manager would remain non-unionized employees because they are named exclusions under the proposed policy.
Academic Coordinators
We believe the de-designation of academic coordinators would result in academic coordinators becoming a part of the CUPE bargaining unit (which presently represents “all non-designated academics”).
In this case, CUPE would “take over” the administration of the AUFA collective agreement for academic coordinators. Subsequently, CUPE would need to either negotiate a new agreement for academic coordinators or incorporate academic coordinators into the existing CUPE agreement.
AUFA expects that AU would seek to reduce the rights and entitlements of academic coordinators during any subsequent collective bargaining. It is unclear if CUPE would be able to maintain academic coordinators’ current rights and entitlements in the face of aggressive AU bargaining. A review of wage settlements at AU shows that CUPE wage settlements have significantly lagged behind AUFA settlements.
Deans and Associate Deans
AUFA believes the de-designation of deans and associate deans would result in deans and associate deans becoming non-unionized (i.e., excluded) employees. This means deans and associate deans would have individual contracts of employment operating under the common law.
Similarly to the professionals (above), these contracts would initially contain existing provisions around wages, benefits and other entitlements. They would also contain some of the procedural rights set out in the collective agreement. It would be up to individual employees to enforce those rights, and the employer could then propose changes to the contracts of employment or seek to terminate them.
It is not perfectly clear if terminated deans and associate deans would have a right of return to their faculty positions under the AUFA agreement. AUFA suspects a return would be possible under the current agreements in place for deans and associate deans.
Pensions
AUFA members are currently enrolled in the Universities Academic Pension Plan (UAPP). We expect that all contributions made by AUFA members prior to de-designation would be protected and de-designated AUFA members would be eligible to receive a pension based upon these contributions.
It is unclear whether AUFA members would continue to be eligible to be members of UAPP if they are de-designated. UAPP’s pension agreement (page 102) indicates that AU employees who are eligible to be members of UAPP comprise:
Academic staff (as that term is defined in the Universities Act), executive, management, and supervisory employees of Athabasca University (as those terms are defined by Athabasca University and filed with the Plan Sponsors) … (p. 102)
The proposed policy narrows the definition of academic staff to professors only. This suggests academic coordinators and most professionals would not be eligible to continue in the pension plan. By contrast, deans, associate deans and professionals with the title of director or manager may still be eligible for UAPP membership based on the management and supervisory categories above.
It may be that AU would make provisions for members ineligible to continue with UAPP due to the proposed policy to join a different pension plan. It may also be possible for AU to alter its definitions on file with UAPP to maintain pension membership eligibility for de-designated staff. This is obviously an issue AUFA will be raising when AU begins consulting with AUFA about the proposed policy.
What can we do?
We will be hosting two townhall meetings (January 16 in Athabasca, January 17 in Edmonton) from 12-1pm, both with a teleconference option. At these meetings, we will be discussing the ways in which AUFA members can work together to prevent AU from busting the union via de-designation.
In the meantime, we encourage any members interested in contributing to these efforts to contact the Membership Engagement Committee at engagement@aufa.ca.
Bob Barnetson, Member
AUFA Member Engagement Committee