Over the past twelve months, there have been 12 disciplinary investigations of AUFA members under Article 7 of the collective agreement. In past years, there were between 1 and 3 such investigations. This seeming increase is largely the result of Human Resources moving from informal processes to more formal ones. Although formal investigations are nerve-wracking, they ensure that investigations follow the rules in our Collective Agreement.
The above chart breaks down status of discipline cases that were active in the past year. Of the twelve cases over this past year, three have resulted in discipline thus far.
Investigation: Article 7.3
When the employer wishes to investigate a potential problem with an AUFA member, they must follow the rules set out in Article 7 to conduct the investigation. It is up to HR to determine what is worthy of investigation or not. If HR wishes to commence an investigation they must:
Inform the AUFA Executive Director.
Inform the member, and ensure they understand their right to union representation.
To conduct the investigation, HR will use either an HR officer, or hire an external contractor. An initial meeting is held to discuss the allegations with the member with a union representative present. The investigator will then normally conduct interviews with affected parties within the workplace and gather evidence to determine what happened.
During the investigative process, Human Resources may elect to place a member on paid leave. This typically occurs only with with more serious allegations. It is important to understand that members subject to this process have not been found guilty of anything, and they are not being “disciplined” (even if the investigation may feel that way). Rather, the employer is investigating a potential problem, and they have to conduct the investigation to find out if the problem is real.
Discipline: Article 7.5
At the conclusion of an investigation, Human Resources will receive a report from the investigator, and decide whether to proceed or not with imposing discipline. If Human Resources determines that corrective discipline is necessary, Article 7.5 allows the employer to do one of the following:
A written warning on the employee’s file.
Denial of certain rights.
Suspension with pay.
Suspension without pay.
Termination with cause.
The employer normally imposes progressive discipline, where initial discipline is a milder form and, if the misbehaviour persists, corrective actions become increasingly severe. If there is a very serious infraction, however, the employer may issue suspension or termination on a first offence.
If the employer decides discipline is not warranted, the investigation concludes without discipline.
Appeal: Article 7.7
Members have a right to request the withdrawal of discipline from the University President. If the President declines (which they have always done), the member can then request an appeal.
AUFA has strong appeal language which sends disciplinary decisions to a panel of three people. AUFA choses one, AU choses the other, and the third is elected by the two panel members. The panel does not have to be internal, allowing either side to choose legal counsel for an appeal. Per our contract, the employer must pay for the panel, which may be extremely expensive for the employer.
Members who were placed on leave during an investigation may, at the employer’s discretion, remain that way until an appeal is heard. The penalties of termination and suspension without pay are held in abeyance until the appeal is complete and a decision rendered. Appeal results that follow process properly are binding.
Analysis
Investigations have been informally referred to as “disciplines” in the past, which can create unnecessary worry for affected members. Discipline only takes place after an investigation, if the employer decides to impose one of the penalties set out in Article 7.5. Most investigations do not result in discipline. It is important to understand that if you are under investigation, you are not being punished by the employer.
AUFA has received several questions from members concerned that disciplinary cases may be disproportionately affecting racialized members. Although we do not have equity data on our membership to compare the cases to the total population, we’ve observed the following:
75% of Article 7 cases affected white members. This is inclusive of both investigations and disciplines.
The remaining 25% were for members who were Black, Indigenous, or people of colour.
Of the three cases that resulted in discipline (one was withdrawn), two of the three affected members are white.
More reports to the membership on cases in the grievance file will be forthcoming with additional contract analysis in the coming months.
Dave Powell
Grievance Lead