Some AUFA members have asked why the membership engagement committee (MEC) is advancing the slogan “We choose AUFA.” Other AUFA members have queried if AUFA should be making arguments about the nature of academic work rooted in the higher education literature.
These are useful questions to ask because they speak to the nature of the designation dispute and the strategy MEC and the AUFA executive is advancing. This blog post discusses MEC’s thinking behind the “We choose AUFA” slogan.
What Kind of Argument?
Academic arguments are intended to discern the truth of an issue by applying logic and evidence. They assume that both parties are earnestly searching for the truth and will accept it when it is found.
AU’s proposal to de-designate 67% of the bargaining unit is not an academic argument over what the definition of an academic ought to be. Rather, de-designation is an effort by AU to increase its power at the bargaining table by busting the union.
For this reason, MEC has been reluctant to enter into arguments about who is an academic based upon the higher education literature (or other criteria). The employer is not seeking truth—they are simply using their de-designation power to pursue their collective bargaining interests.
The employer’s quest for more power cannot be thwarted by making a really good academic argument. Further, the nuanced discussion typical of academic arguments provides the employer with an opportunity to cherry-pick things AUFA members say in good faith and then use them out of context against us.
We Choose AUFA
MEC selected “We choose AUFA” because it aligns with the legal tests we will need to meet at the Alberta Labour Relations Board, should AU proceed to de-designate any AUFA members.
Section 58.6(2) of the Labour Relations Code outlines five criteria that the Labour Board must consider in any appeal of a de-designation:
History of designation: An institution’s past practice provides important context. It can speak to whether the current arrangement is functional and whether there is a shared community of interest among affected employees.
Results of consultation: The consultation can tell the Labour Board about the desires of the affected workers as well as the arguments advanced by the employer (so far, none are evident) for any change.
Potential for managerial conflict of interest: Some employees may be best excluded from the bargaining unit because their managerial responsibilities create a conflict of interest. AU’s present policy addresses this by excluding the senior executive, directors, and staff who perform labour relations functions.
Arrangements for the transition of affected employees: The impact of de-designation can be significant. (Rather alarmingly, AU claims it hasn’t worked out what these implications are yet). AU’s mitigation (or lack of mitigation) of the negative effects of de-designation may suggest that de-designation is inappropriate.
Interests of other bargaining agents: The boundaries of a bargaining unit need to make labour relations sense. Units can’t be too small or too numerous and the unit needs to have a shared community of interest.
“We choose AUFA” starts from the premise that the workers should decide to which union they wish to belong. We have a right to associate to improve our lives and working conditions. And we should choose the union that represents us.
The employer should not be able to usurp our decision to associate or our longstanding associational arrangements by arbitrarily de-designating workers against our will. This is particularly true when the employer would benefit from such a de-designation by increasing its bargaining power.
That AUFA’s current membership has been successfully bargaining together for the past 37 years demonstrates that we have a shared community of interest in the union we have chosen. It also tells the Labour Board that our bargaining unit is viable, and we have worked out ways to manage frictions that exist with the union. Our history also suggests that any managerial conflicts have also been successfully addressed.
Finally, the support AUFA has received from CUPE and AUPE regarding maintaining the current bargaining unit boundaries tells the Labour Board that the current bargaining unit boundaries make labour relations sense.
Analysis
AU keeps trying to draw AUFA and its members into a detailed discussion of who should be an academic. The truth is, the current policy has worked fine for the past 37 years. The employer has provided no evidence that the current arrangement poses any sort of real institutional problem. The employer has provided no rationale for its proposal to radically alter the definition of academic.
The most likely explanation is that AU is simply trying to undercut AUFA’s bargaining power and render our strike threat moot. This will allow AU to drive rollbacks into our contract (just like they tried to last round).
While “We choose AUFA” is just a slogan, it is a slogan that represents the actual conflict that is happening. AU is trying to increase its bargaining power and that is not in the interests of any AUFA member. Our interest is in collectively defending the union we have chosen and making our choice as widely known as possible.
Bob Barnetson, Member
AUFA Membership Engagement Committee