Last fall, AU proposed a new designation policy that would remove 67% of AUFA members from the bargaining unit. Three consultation meetings with AUFA, AUPE and CUPE took place in February. These meetings ended with no clear resolution or process for further consultation.
An April survey of AUFA members revealed that only 2% of members supported AU’s proposal. On May 12, AUFA, AUPE and CUPE representatives met with representatives of the employer to continue consultation on the proposed Designation as Academic Policy.
May 12 Meeting Summary
The three unions affirmed their collective desire to maintain the status quo on bargaining unit boundaries, citing the need for labour peace and collegiality. Each of the unions stated the issues that they saw in the proposed policy, namely that AUFA would suffer heavy membership losses, and AUFA members would face uncertainty regarding their representation, protections, and benefits.
When AUFA asked whether or not the employer intended to provide a revised draft of the policy, the employer’s representatives replied that no, they have not revised the policy, claiming that they do not understand the unions’ objections to the policy. This statement is difficult to reconcile with the fact that we had met three times previous to this meeting, and had very clearly stated our reasons for objecting.
AUFA representatives maintained their stance that the designation policy should take an inclusive approach to the definition of an academic, citing the current policy (in place since 2003, and revised in 2013). The current policy contains a broad and effective definition of academic, given that it is a labour relations term for the purposes of designation and since any definition of academic has implications for bargaining unit membership, as per the PSLA.
AUFA again questioned the university’s motives in proposing a policy that would result in massive membership losses. No satisfactory response was received. Rather, AU representatives simply stated that they have already answered that question, and insist that they are unaware of the implications for membership loss as a result of the implementation of the policy as its being proposed.
When pressed with the question of whether or not the bargaining units would remain the same if this policy were to be implemented as it is now presented, the employer’s representative conceded that if employees were found not to fit the definition of academic in the proposed policy, then the composition of the bargaining units would change.
The three unions have agreed to continue to meet with the employer to consult on the policy. No additional meeting dates have been set.
Analysis
AU continues to frame this consultation as a good-faith undertaking, designed to establish a clear definition of what an academic is and then apply it to the existing AUFA bargaining unit. This framing avoids engaging several important issues:
AU has not advanced a clear rationale for making major changes to a policy that has been in effect since 1983. In short, the radical changes in the proposed policy do not appear to solve any problem. It is difficult to meaningfully consult when the employer will not name the problem that its proposal is trying to solve.
The proposed policy would significantly and negatively affect the terms and conditions of AUFA members who would be dedesignated. President Fassina declined to discuss these changes in a townhall, saying the changes would be identified after the new policy would be enacted. AU has provided no information about potential impacts since then. It is irresponsible for AU to propose profound changes without identifying the implications of those changes for affected members.
The proposed policy would dramatically reduce the bargaining power of those members left in AUFA and thus AUFA’s ability to resist rollbacks at the bargaining table. It would do so by reducing the ability of AUFA to disrupt operations during a strike or lockout.
The last point suggests that this consultation is not simply a review of the policy. It is also an effort to reduce the bargaining power of AUFA. Absent a powerful strike threat, AU would be able to force wage and working condition rollbacks on the few remaining AUFA members. For this reason, it is important to focus on the labour-relations outcome of AU’s proposed policy, rather than getting draw into debate about what is the definition of an academic.
Next Steps
AUFA, AUPE and CUPE will continue consulting, but the employer’s behaviour suggests it has little intention to alter its aggressive proposal. In the event that the Board proceeds to de-designate AUFA members, AUFA has developed a strategy combining member actions with an appeal to the Labour Relations Board. AUFA will also be raising the designation issue when the two sides begin meeting to commence collective bargaining.
Jolene Armstrong, President