In late February, AU advised AUFA that it wished to remove the five deans from the AUFA bargaining unit as per AU’s new de-designation policy. Deans (or people performing decanal duties) have been in the bargaining unit since the 80s.
After consulting with the deans and legal council, AUFA declined to respond to AU’s business case. Instead, AUFA indicated that (1) AU can bargain this issue if it wishes and (2) AUFA will be pursuing complaints at the Labour Relations Board, as it is illegal for an employer to attempt changes to a bargaining unit during the freeze period of open bargaining. Designation is not an exception.
Our response below is what was sent to Human Resources:
The following is AUFA's response to the Deans Designation Business Case:
Deans have been included as part of AUFA from their inception in 1985-95, and their re-introduction in 2011-present; as were their analogues, directors, between 1995-2011. They are a part of our collective bargaining agreement and are academic staff members, it is inappropriate to ask us to consult on a de-designation case for the deans. There is no further need to consult.
If the employer wishes to discuss removal of the deans from the bargaining unit, it must be done in the proper context of bargaining. Should the employer continue with their business case and move to de-designate the deans, it would amount to a violation of the Labour Relations Code: breach of the Freeze Period of collective bargaining, interference in the representation of union members, and/or bargaining in bad faith.
That said, it is useful to consider the business case AU has advanced and the rest of this blog does that.
AU’s Arguments Lack Evidence
AU justifies its move to exclude the deans on two primary grounds. Even a cursory investigation reveals these grounds are specious, even when judged against their own policy that was forced through against the will of all three campus unions.
AU’s new de-designation policy defines academics as individuals whose jobs involved teaching, research, and service work. AU asserts the deans don’t do this combination of work and thus don’t meet the (highly contestable) definition of academic that AU just established. As it turns out:
Teaching: Four of the five deans perform direct teaching. The fifth dean (who does not teach) was parachuted in from administrative leave following the termination of the dean of FHD. Indeed, the deans who are supervising graduate students would be forced to give that up if they are de-designated, because the Faculty of Graduate Studies regulations require supervisors to be full-time and continuing faculty members.
Service: All of the deans serve on university governance committees.
Research: All of the deans are engaged in scholarly research.
AU also argues deans should be excluded because they perform managerial functions, including making decisions with respect to hiring, promotion, discipline, and discharge, and that they have an important role in labour relations within AU. This assertion founders in several ways:
Section 58.1(4) of the Labour Relations Code explicitly allows for academics who perform managerial functions to be considered employees and thus eligible for membership in faculty association.
Article 3.5 of the collective agreement outlines how hiring occurs. A search committee makes a recommendation to the VPA and the VPA requests the President make an offer. Deans are not decision makers in the hiring process.
Article 3.6 outlines how promotion works. A promotion review committee makes a recommendation to the VPA and the VPA makes a recommendation that the President promote or not promote. Deans are not decision makers in the promotion process.
Article 7 outlines how discipline and termination works. A dean can investigate a concern (although in practice, HR does the investigation) and then makes a recommendation to the VPA who, then decides if discipline is warranted and what the discipline (which can include termination) shall be. Deans are not decision makers in the discipline and termination process.
Deans have effectively no role in labour relations as it affects AUFA members. Deans may have a role in labour relations regarding CUPE tutors or AUPE support staff. This is neither relevant to nor precludes their membership in AUFA.
AU also asserts that the goals of deans in bargaining will likely conflict with those of other AUFA members. AU does not substantiate this assertion. To date, AUFA has been unable to find any instances of meaningful conflicts of interest occurring.
Analysis & Next Steps
Overall, AU’s business case for the de-designation of deans lacks any meaningful rationale. It is concerning that this business case contains profound factual inaccuracies. It is unclear whether the Provost has a poor grasp of what the deans actually do, or whether this lack of evidence reveals the emptiness of the consultation process itself.
Should AUFA’s labour board complaint not forestall the process, the next steps under the policy is for the university executive to make a recommendation to the Board’s Human Resources and Compensation Committee (the HRCC). The HRCC appears to have the authority to decide the matter.
Should the HRCC decide to de-designate the deans, AUFA will file an appeal of the de-designation. AUFA will also make candidates for the three decanal vacancies aware of the implications of de-designation on their employment security.
Bob Barnetson
Membership Engagement Committee