On Tuesday, AU informed AUFA that it wishes to proceed with de-designating the five dean positions from the AUFA bargaining unit. This is a disappointing development. This blog post provides some background, discusses the process, provides some analysis, and outlines AUFA’s initial plan to defeat this renewed effort at union busting.
BACKGROUND
Alberta’s labour laws give university Boards of Governors the power to “designate” who is an academic staff member. This designation determines who is in and out of the faculty association. These decisions can be appealed to the Alberta Labour Relations Board.
This is an unusual legal arrangement. More commonly, Labour Relations Boards decide who is in and out of the bargaining unit based on criteria such as community of interest and the history of bargaining. Having the Labour Relations Board decide who is in the unit avoids the conflict of interest that can arise when employers are given the power to fiddle union membership in ways that advantage the boss.
In late 2019, AU notified AUFA that it planned to amend its designation policy. These proposed amendments threatened to carve two-thirds of AUFA members out of the union (and the pension plan). AUFA members fought back and although the policy was passed, the result was a victory of sorts for AUFA where we forced the issue to a stalemate. Although AU now has a policy that on a casual reading could exclude two-thirds of AUFA members, AU has chosen not to enforce the policy.
The last information from AU representatives was that although the policy was on the books, it would not be used to remove members of the IT department. AUFA read this as a victory, as the IT department was a clear target for de-designation earlier in the policy and as such academic coordinators and other professional groups were unlikely to be targeted either. However, a risk under this policy is that anybody can make a ‘designation business case’ and argue there should be a change in designation status, which is what has happened with deans.
AU’s new policy included a consultation process when AU wants to designate or de-designate members for the union. AUFA’s experience with the consultation that occurred during the policy change was that the consultation was a hollow process where AU largely ignored everything the unions said.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
AU’s policy and procedure governing (de)designation provides that:
A stakeholder who wishes a change in designation (in this case, VPA Matt Prineas) must provide a business case to the university’s executive.
Affected unions receive 21 days to respond to the business case.
Assuming the university’s executive wants to proceed, it then forwards the case to the Board’s human resources and compensation committee (HRCC) for a decision.
AUFA can then appeal the decision to the Labour Relations Board.
AU has given AUFA until March 9, 2021 to provide a response. AUFA’s expectation is that this case will then proceed to the Board’s HRCC. Oddly, the university’s website no longer lists who is on the HRCC or when its meetings occur.
AU’s ARGUMENT
AU’s argument for de-designating deans is set out in their business case. This nub of it is that:
Deans don’t do the work of academics, which the policy defines as teaching, service, and research (must do all three).
Deans have decision making power around hiring, firing, promotion and discipline so are managers and should be out of the unit.
Deans have an important role in labour relations.
Taking these arguments in order, they are clearly defective:
AUFA argued the definition of academic in the policy was under-inclusive during the consultations because it excluded approximately two-thirds of current AUFA members. For example, academic coordinators are not required to do research and professionals are neither required to teach nor research. AU’s assertion about what the deans do is also factually incorrect. Some deans do teach and perform research while working as deans and all perform service work.
The collective agreement and AU’s policy restricts the role of deans in hiring, promotion, firing, and discipline to (at most) making recommendations to actual decision makers. Hiring and promotion, in particular, are collegial processes. Firing and discipline are decisions made by university executive officers. Deans have little independent managerial authority.
Deans have no meaningful role in labour relations as it relates to AUFA members. The business case notes that deans have no role in collective bargaining and HR systematically excludes deans from disciplinary investigations.
The policy outlines other factors to consider, such as the history of the bargaining unit and the impact upon the affected employees. Here too, AU’s rationale for de-designation is weak. AU has had deans twice (1981-1995 and 2011-present). Both times, the deans have been AUFA members. In between these periods (when the role of dean was performed by academic directors), the directors were also in the union. While, in rare cases, having deans and other managers of AUFA members in the union can cause discomfort, no meaningful problems have arisen.
AU asserts that deans have bargaining goals that conflict with those of other AU academics. AU does not specify what are these conflicts. AU hints that they are around performance management, promotion, and discipline. But, as noted above, deans have a limited role in these matters. No clear conflicting bargaining goals are identified in the application or have arisen in the last seven rounds of bargaining.
AU’s analysis conveniently ignores the collegial and diffuse nature of administration and authority in universities, particularly within Athabasca University. Deans are not academic analogs to excluded managers.
ANALYSIS
To date the refusal on the part of the employer to wield their designation policy has been a boon to AUFA members. Setting legal precedents wherein the Designation as Academic Policy is legitimized is an immediate threat to AUFA members. If Deans are out under the policy, which is arguable, then the obvious exclusions of academic coordinators and professionals will be that much easier.
AU presents no compelling reason to carve these long-standing members out of AUFA. The two most likely explanations for this move are:
AU sees the deans as the easiest group of AUFA members to carve off and is using this application as the thin edge of the wedge. Success with the deans may embolden the employer to try for carve out other groups of members.
AU wants to make the deans creatures of the executive in order to do the executive’s bidding. Stripping them of their union protections will make deans less likely to resist enacting the executive’s will because the deans would no longer have union protection.
AU may also be testing AUFA’s willingness to fight for small groups of members and if their designation policy holds legal weight at the Labour Relations Board.
It is not clear whether AU has contemplated how de-designating deans will affect the three decanal hirings presently underway (FB, FHD, FHSS). Will de-designation shrink the pool of potential candidates?
AUFA’s PLAN
AUFA plan is to resist the de-designation of the deans. While AUFA’s executive is currently looking at options, a thumbnail sketch will include:
Written submission: Despite misgivings that the consultation process will be pointless and AUFA’s belief that a written submission does not really constitute consultation, AUFA will argue that the deans should remain in the association.
Legal: AUFA will be appealing any de-designation to the Labour Board.
Member pressure: We were effective in thwarting AU’s efforts to automatically remove two-third of the members from the union in 2020 through direct action. We will use similar tactics to pressurize Matt Prineas, the AU executive, and the Board to stop pursuing this application.
Thank you for your patience as we respond to this latest attack on AUFA members right to choose to belong to AUFA.
Dave Powell, President