COLA increase effective December 1

AUFA negotiated and AUFA members ratified three cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) in the last collective agreement. This COLA settlement was consistent with settlements across the province.

On April 1, 2023, AUFA members received a 1.25% COLA increase to salaries and grids.

On December 1 members will receive their second COLA increase of 1.5%.

Looking forward to 2024, there is the potential for a third COLA increase. This increase is more complex.

• The COLA increase is 0.5% to salaries and grids.

• The increase is contingent upon Alberta’s economic performance.

• If the average of all private forecasts for Alberta’s 2023 Real GDP is at or above 2.7% as of February of 2024, the additional 0.5% COLA will be paid.

• If the COLA is paid, it will be calculated retroactively to December 1, 2023 and applied (with retro pay) in the February or March 2024 paycheques.

Essentially, we will know in February if there is a further 0.5% COLA increase that applies retroactively to December 1.

AUFA will commence collective bargaining this spring to renew our collective agreement. More information will be forthcoming from the AUFA bargaining team in due course.

Bob Barnetson, President

Spring survey results: Continued distrust in AU executive and strong strike threat

In June, volunteers with AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) completed the sixth membership engagement survey. This survey included the usual climate questions as well as explored issues related to the recently concluded round of bargaining, the jobs in Athabasca issue (which has since become a significant issue), and AU’s implementation of Netskope surveillance software on members’ computers. 

This iteration of the survey was delayed from the targeted April/May timing, which likely impacted response rates. Eighty-two randomly selected members (just under 20% of the membership) completed the call-based survey, with representation across departments and employee types. 

Climate Questions 

Survey callers asked four recurring questions on the general climate at AU. Overall, members report continued distrust in the AU executive, while AUFA’s work is broadly supported. There is an interesting discrepancy between the 39% of members who reported high morale compared to 77% who reported enjoying starting work in the morning. This likely reflects members’ appreciation for the work they do while also reflecting their frustration with their working conditions. 

Looking further at the question of trust in AU’s executive team, there was a slight increase since the last survey (in fall 2021), from 15% to 20% expressing trust, which is still far below the highest rate of 30% who agreed with this question in the very first survey (in fall 2019). There were no clear trends in terms of which member groups are more or less likely to agree or disagree. For example, when analyzing responses based on length of service, new hires reported around the same level of distrust in executive and trust in AUFA as longer-serving staff. 

In the comments provided by members regarding AU’s executive, most expressed strongly negative feelings, with the following emerging as themes: 

• feelings of being mistreated, belittled, or disrespected by the employer  

• dissatisfaction with the communication and information provided to faculty and staff 

• perceptions of mismanagement, ineptitude, or hidden agendas 

• perceptions of a lack of understanding of the university’s culture and values 

• desire for following through with a vote of non-confidence in the current executive 

In terms of factors contributing to these feelings, the employer’s opening position in bargaining featured prominently. Members also spoke about how the various reorganizations at AU—including the IT reorganization and the near-virtual transition—have been and continue to be handled poorly, which is negatively affecting morale.  

Contract Negotiations 

Having narrowly avoided a strike this spring, MEC queried members’ willingness to have withdrawn their labour. The vast majority of members (88%) indicated were likely to have withdrawn their labour during a strike or lockout, with just 6% saying they were unlikely. This reponse suggests AUFA’s strike threat was a credible one. A credible strike threat enhances the bargaining power of the union. 

Members had mixed views about the final contract that was ratified. The largest chunk of repondents (44%) indicated they were “somewhat satisfied”; neutral and “somewhat dissatisfied” responses each received 22%. Very few members indicated they were either very satisfied (5%) or very dissatisfied (about 7%). This distribution of responses suggests that members are feeling rather ambivalent about the settlement.  

Survey respondents provided a wide variety of comments on the contract language, but the issue most members identified as concerning was (unsurprisingly) the loss of Research and Study Leave for professional members. Comments were broadly aligned with the discussion among members during bargaining, which includes broad, but certainly not unanimous, support for this benefit.  

In addition to the RSL issue, cost of living, inflation, and wages were frequently mentioned. Members broadly felt the cost-of-living adjustment was inadequate. Cost of home office was identified as needing to be addressed. 

Jobs in Athabasca 

As previously reported, a majority of respondents (73%) supported AUFA’s current position that, while no current AUFA member should be forced to re-locate, AU should make an effort to hire a portion of new staff to the Athabasca area. MEC also asked if AUFA should take a position on this issue at all, and a majority (67%) agreed that it should. 

Understanding that, as a union, we are often dealing with multiple priorities, MEC also asked about the relative importance of this issue. There was more disagreement on this question, with only 51% of respondents suggesting it was important that AUFA take a position. That is, there seems to be a portion of members (about 15–25%) who think AUFA should take a position and who agree with AUFA’s current position, but who don’t see this issue as a top concern. There were some identifiable differences when analyzing this question in more detail, so it’s worth taking a look at where some of this discrepancy comes from.  

There were some notable differences here when comparing new employees with those who have been at AU for longer. This issue is important to just 31% of employees who have been at AU fewer than 10 years, while 81% of those who have been at AU more than 20 years said this issue was important to them. 

It is also worth noting that support for AUFA’s position on this issue varies widely between faculties and departments, with the strongest support in FB, FHSS, and the IT department, and weakest support in FHD, FST, and other departments. 

Member comments were diverse. Some members noted that requiring candidates live in Athabasca may narrow the applicant pool unacceptably. Other suggested that candidates could be enticed to live in Athabasca through meaningful incentives.  

Some members felt AU’s primary role is to educate students, not contribute to the economy of Athabasca. Other members note that AU’s location was chosen for economic development purposes and there is no necessary conflict between providing online education while having a portion of jobs located in the Athabasca area. 

Other members were concerned that successive Boards and executives had mishandled this issue (primarily by ignoring it) and that the government was intervening due to political pressure. Some members suggested that the university executive should be expected to model a commitment to Athabasca by living in the Athabasca area, at least part of the time. Others suggested rethinking this issue in order to take advantage of the possibilities a rural campus offers.  

While a lot has happened since this survey was conducted in June, the AUFA executive’s open letter points to several ways in which this issue might be resolved in a constructive and mutually beneficial way.  

Netskope and Privacy 

Members were strongly in favour of AUFA taking steps to protect their privacy after AU installed surveillance software called Netskope on member computers without forewarning or data governance. 

Members’ comments provide many insights about their concerns with this program being used on their work computers, with some common themes: 

• It constitutes a breach of privacy. Members feel concerned about this being a breach to their right to privacy, confidentiality, and security in the workplace. 

• It creates a culture of mistrust between workers and the employer, as they feel not trusted and feel spied and surveilled by the employer. 

• Lack of transparency. Members manifested being concerned about not being properly informed on the reasons why this program is being used, about the data that is being collected, and about the implications that this may have for their privacy in the workplace. 

• It jeopardizes research participants’ right to security, anonymity, and confidentiality. Members who manage and storage research data collected among vulnerable populations (including Indigenous, racialized, and those with precarious legal status) think that the tracking of this information jeopardizes the security of research participants and their right to confidentiality and privacy, making researchers to incur in violations of research protocols. 

• Lack of informed consent. Members feel concerned about the fact that the decision to install a program to collects information was made on a top-down manner, without previous consultation, proper notice, or consent. 

• Insecurity in the workplace. Members fear that the information that is being collected can be used to punish those engaged in disputes with the employer. 

• Threat to safety. Members feel unsafe in the workplace, as they have no clear understanding of what type of information is being tracked and collected, and as they have no clear understanding if this information includes family/personal information. 

• It affects productivity and morale, as the feelings of being spied “all the time” discourages engagement with the job. It also discourages the search of information that can be seen as “suspicious” from the point of view of the employer. 

• There are no clear policies and rules governing the use of this software in the workplace. 

The AUFA executive is following up with the employer about the use of this software and the timelines for a privacy impact assessment, but have so far received no new information.  

The survey also asked members about their use of the AUFA website. This feedback has been shared with the communications committee and will help inform future work to improve the website for members.  

MEC extends its thanks to its volunteer callers as well as the members who took the time to answer the survey. The next MEC survey is planned for this fall. If you would like to be volunteer to help with survey calls, please email engagement@aufa.ca. 

Rhiannon Rutherford 

AUFA President

Bargaining Update: Tentative Agreement Reached

After another marathon day of mediator-assisted bargaining, AU and AUFA have reached a tentative agreement. Employer concessions contained in this new agreement no doubt reflect AUFA members’ strong rejection Monday of AU’s last ‘final’ offer. As a result, the AUFA bargaining team is recommending members vote to ratify this agreement. 

 AUFA is holding a town hall today at 2:00pm to discuss the substance of the tentative agreement, as well as what AUFA’s next steps might look like. In the meantime, this blog post provides a summary of the tentative settlement’s key items. For reference, the entire tentative agreement is attached below.  

2022 04 07 PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT (Tentaive Agreement) (00160919).pdf

The agreement uses the mediator’s report as the basis for most of the agreement. Most items in that report remain unchanged, including: 

• Cost-of-living-adjustment:  

  • The Government-mandated COLA increase of 1.25% (April 1, 2023), 1.5% (December 1, 2023) and an increase of 0.5% (retroactive to December 1, 2023) contingent on provincial gainsharing formula remains unchanged. This 3.25% COLA increase over the life of the contract appears to be pattern across most of the Alberta public sector. 

• Working-from-home allowance payments:  

  • Anyone who has not received the full $2000 for home office start-up will receive a ‘top up’ to make up the full $2000;  

  • Home-based staff with six years of service (and who received $2000 upon hiring) will receive an additional taxable $800 immediately. 

  • All AUFA members will receive an increase to their monthly allowance for internet and other office-related expenses from what it had been (roughly $61 per month for academics and roughly $50 per month for professionals) to $35 biweekly. 

• Joint committee to study Article 3: Academic Promotion and Tenure 

• Improvements to Compassionate Care Leave  

• Improvements to Occupational Health and Safety language 

• Language to include Joint Equity Committee in development of EDI framework and pay equity review 

• Withdrawal of employers’ outstanding concession demands 

The main changes in the tentative agreement relate to Research and Study Leave (RSL) benefits for Professional members. The proposed agreement removes Professionals’ eligibility for RSL going forward, with the following conditions: 

• No RSL days will be accrued going forward. New hires will not be eligible for RSL. Approved RSL leaves will be honoured. 

• Professionals will earn 30 days professional development leave per year (up from 21). Twenty-one days can be accrued per year to a maximum of 126 days (6 months). 

• Members can apply for leaves up to a maximum of six months. Members will need to apply for leaves longer than 21 days under new language that replicates the current process under RSL Leaves. If denied once, a second application will be given priority and not unreasonably denied. 

• Professionals with more than six months leave accrued will retain that leave, with no deadline on usage. Until their accrual drops below six months, they will only receive 21 PD days per year without accrual.  

• When a professional has fewer than six months RSL accrued, the leave will be converted to PD leave according to the formula in Schedule F and added to their PD bank. 

• Librarians will continue to be eligible for RSL. 

For clarity: in return for giving up RSL leave going forward, professionals will earn an additional 9 days of PD per year and will be able to accrue up to 21 days per year to a maximum of 6 months. Current RSL accruals above 6 months will be retained and others converted with a formula equivalent to receiving 100% pay for RSL leave. 

The bargaining committee recognizes this deal does not provide a full return for professionals on the value of their RSL entitlements. It does, however, provide more than the original mediator’s report in that it retains accrued leave at full value and provides professionals with 9 additional PD days per year going forward. This equates to a value of 3.6% of annual income. 

AUFA’s bargaining team is recommending this deal because we believe it is the best that can be achieved under current circumstances. The provincial government’s secret mandate has seriously undermined the basic integrity of the bargaining process, and severely limited what can, and cannot, be achieved at the table. This is especially true in terms of matters involving money. 

As always, of course, any final decision on whether to accept this tentative agreement rests solely in the hands of AUFA members. This is, after all, your collective agreement, and AUFA’s bargaining committee works for you.  

 On behalf of the Bargaining Committee, 

Jason Foster 

RSL for Professionals: Testimonials

The item that has gotten a lot of attention from members is the employer’s proposed removal of Research & Study Leave (RSL) for professional staff.  While we know that not all professional staff are able to take this leave (for many reasons including lack of staffing to cover for their leave, a workload that is too heavy, and that it wouldn’t be approved by their manager), the minor payout that AU has offered is not a fair compensation for this benefit. 

In a recent survey of professional staff (with 140 respondents and just under 200 professional members of AUFA): 

• 65.9% of respondents said that RSL was important to them 

• 66.67% said that it was likely that they would take professional RSL in the future 

• 19.9% thought it was acceptable to trade RSL for a one-time flat payout of around $10,000 (which is the current offer) 

As many members have pointed out, the push to remove this benefit from professional members relies on the assumption that AU professional members are not important members of our research community and that their continuing studies are not important to the work they do for the university. 

Here are testimonials from members about why RSL leave is important for them: 

Testimonial 1: 

I left a PhD program to work for AU, so I was thrilled to have the opportunity to return to some of my graduate research once I accumulated enough Research and Study Leave (RSL). Following that first RSL in 2012, I published three articles in top-tier peer-reviewed ecology and entomology journals. In my most recent RSL, in 2018, I edited websites, tested and edited educational board games, and edited books of poetry, a fiction novel, and an academic monograph. Diversifying and broadening my experience has made me a better editor and has been hugely valuable to my work in FHSS, with its wide range of courses and styles—from statistics to creative writing, from psychology to political science. 

Professional Development leave is certainly very useful for attending a webinar or a three-day conference. Even if I took all of my PD time at once, however, I could not write research articles or edit a manuscript. RSL provides me with something PD or an extra 9% compensation would not: time. The time to pursue education or research or service not only improves the work that I do for AU, it also reinforces the university’s credibility as an employer and as a provider of high-quality educational materials. 

Testimonial 2: 

As a senior software developer with over 15 years of experience, I took a significant pay cut to come work at AU two and a half years ago. With the ever-increasing costs of everything while trying to raise a young family, taking this pay cut has not been easy. However, I wanted to come work here because I would be able to pursue graduate studies and I would be allowed to take R&S leave to complete my research. I am currently enrolled in the MScIS program and the intended focus of my research will be around learning analytics and the application of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in learning management systems. 

AU's proposals to eliminate R&S leave for professionals are incredibly shortsighted for several reasons. First, the outcomes of my research are likely to be beneficial to AU as they will be focused on using emerging technologies in distance education. This research is directly applicable to my day-to-day work and will provide me with a foundation that will allow me to identify innovations and efficiencies to improve our services. 

Likewise, by being able to take R&S leave, I will be able to research my chosen topics in-depth and focus on delivering meaningful and novel findings, rather than just trying to complete my thesis so I can be done with it. As I am sure that many academics would agree, meaningful research requires time, effort, dedication, and perseverance. R&S leave allows professionals to focus solely on their studies rather than having to balance them against many other priorities. 

Furthermore, R&S leave for professionals is a significant competitive advantage for AU when it comes to hiring new IT staff. Every other institution can offer you more money, but few other companies have the framework and the capabilities to offer you something like R&S leave. There is a significant shortage of IT professionals in every field right now. If anything, AU should be looking to boost R&S benefits to use them to hire talented, skilled, and hardworking individuals who are passionate about their career. 

Finally, professional R&S leave is a benefit that is likely to cause strong debate. It is not a coincidence that AU is using it to create division amongst AUFA union members. For those that are reluctant to support this benefit because they do not understand its value or do not believe that professionals should have it, I urge you to think about what AU will try to eliminate in the next round of bargaining and who will be willing to stand with you in solidarity. 

Bargaining Update: Mediator Issues Report

After three days of mediation (March 11, 17 and 22), the mediator has issued a report to the parties with recommendations for a possible settlement. The AUFA bargaining committee has decided to forward the report directly to AUFA members for their consideration. A vote on whether to accept the report will be held on Tuesday, March 29 in lieu of the planned strike vote. There is a Town Hall on Friday, March 25 at 2 pm to discuss the report and next steps. 

Significantly, AUFA’s bargaining team is not making a recommendation to members on whether to accept or reject the report. Instead the bargaining team has elected to remain neutral during the voting process. The decision to hold a vote on the report is anchored in AUFA’s broader commitment to democracy, and to AUFA members’ right to make the decisions that will shape what is, ultimately, their collective agreement. 

This blog post outlines the key recommendations in the mediator’s report. The Town Hall will provide further analysis of the recommendations. Members can find a copy of the mediator’s report here.

Wages and Allowances 

The mediator is recommending the same cost-of-living (COLA) settlement seen at other universities: 

• July 1, 2020: 0% 

• July 1, 2021: 0% 

• July 1, 2022: 0%  

• April 1, 2023: 1.25% 

• December 1, 2023: 1.5% 

• An additional 0.5% retroactive to December 1, 2023, payable in February or March 2024 subject to a “Gain Sharing Formula” linked to provincial GDP growth 

AUFA members will also receive enhancements to their working-from-home allowances: 

• Members who have not received $2000 for home-office set-up will be paid the difference between what they were paid and $2000 (e.g., members who received $1000 will receive an additional $1000). This payment is taxable. 

• Academic staff members who previously received $2000 for office set up and have been employed for at least six years shall receive a one-time taxable $800 payment for home office expenses. 

• Going forward all members required to work from home will receive $35 biweekly for printer and internet expenses (up from $61/month for academics and $25/biweekly for professionals).  

Research and Study Leave (RSL) 

Professionals, except librarians, will no longer be eligible for RSL as of the date of ratification. Professional members who are currently on RSL or have RSL approved will have their leaves honoured.  

Going forward, professionals will be allowed to carryover their annual entitlement of 21 days of PD leave to a maximum of 84 days (i.e., the equivalent of 4 years of PD entitlement) and will be able to request leaves up to that maximum. 

Professionals will have two options for dealing with accrued Research and Study Leave entitlements: 

• Option One: Unused RSL leave can be surrendered in exchange for a one-time payment of $10,500. Any unused Professional Development days dating back to 2020 shall be returned to the member’s PD bank. 

• Option Two: Members convert accrued RSL leave to PD leave up to a maximum of 12 months at 100% salary (using the conversion calculation in the current collective agreement). They will be allowed to request leaves up to the amount in their PD leave account. Carryover of PD days will not begin until the member’s account drops below 84 days (i.e., members will continue to earn PD days, but cannot carry them over at the end of the year). 

Employer proposals regarding academic RSL are withdrawn and the status quo remains.  

Other Provisions 

Employer-sought concessions regarding discipline (Article 7), grievance procedure (Article 8), appeals (Article 9), position reduction for academics (Article 12), layoffs for professionals, and probation review for professionals are withdrawn. In all cases, existing language remains. Small changes are made to professional position evaluation review, but members retain the right to appeal decisions under Article 9. 

The mediator recommends establishing a joint committee to review the current academic tenure and promotion process (in Article 3) to make recommendations for the next round of bargaining.  

Some recommendations address AUFA concerns in bargaining, including: 

• Enhancing occupational health and safety language (Article 25). 

• Reforming the Joint Benefits Committee to make it more effective in addressing AUFA members’ benefits concerns. 

• Extending unpaid compassionate care leave to 27 weeks and expanding eligibility to include circumstances of “grave illness”. 

• Inserting language in Article 3 to allow Indigenous Elders and knowledge holders to be recognized as eligible external reviewers for promotion applications from Indigenous academic members. 

• Including a new letter of understanding that involves the joint employment equity committee in an advisory capacity in the development of AU’s equity, diversity, and inclusion action plan and in an employment equity review process. 

• Both parties agreeing to abide by the Labour Relations Board decision regarding the status of Deans in the bargaining unit.  

Vote Results and Next Steps 

The results of the March 29 ratification vote will determine the next steps of the process.  

If members vote to accept the mediator’s report, then it will be considered a ratification of a new collective agreement, bargaining will come to an end, and the provisions in the report take effect as part of the collective agreement.  

If members vote to reject the report, then the parties will return to the bargaining table. The parties are free to bargain directly or continue to use the services of the mediator. Each party will revert to their previous positions before mediation. The mediator’s recommendations may or may not be considered in future bargaining.  

On behalf of the bargaining committee, 

Jason Foster 

AUFA applies for strike vote

After consulting with the bargaining team, AUFA’s executive has applied to the Alberta Labour Relations Board to hold a strike vote. The online vote is scheduled to take place between 9 am and 9 pm on Tuesday, March 29. 

This announcement to the membership was slightly delayed because AUFA’s bargaining team agreed to suspend strike communication on March 18 in order to gain the employer’s agreement for further mediation today.  

The Executive will be holding membership townhall meeting to provide a bargaining update and discuss the strike vote. 

How we got here 

In February, AUFA applied for formal mediation after 11 months of unproductive bargaining. Formal mediation began and ended on March 8. This started a 14-day cooling-off period before a strike vote could be held. 

The bargaining team has continued bargaining (with a different mediator) on March 11, 18, and 22. The parties agreed to not disclose the substance of their discussions during mediation. No agreement has yet been reached. AUFA’s team remains ready to bargain to achieve a fair deal. 

The employer’s past behaviour suggests that AU makes significant moves only when AUFA applies significant pressure. For example, AU only presented a full offer in January (after 10 months of bargaining) when AU was faced with a Labour Board hearing over a complaint that AU was bargaining in bad faith. AU only moved to propose a pattern cost-of-living offer after AUFA filed for formal mediation on in February. 

AUFA members’ 85% rejection of AU’s March 8 offer has not yielded a subsequent offer from AU that AUFA’s bargaining team thinks is worth presenting to the membership. The AUFA Executive is of the opinion that a successful strike vote may provide the pressure needed to get a fair deal from AU. 

How a strike vote works 

A strike vote is an online vote (just like any other AUFA vote) that is supervised by the Labour Board. It asks members whether they would authorize a strike (yes or no). Once the vote has been completed and certified by the Labour Board (and assuming a majority of voters authorize a strike), AUFA’s executive is then able, any time in the next 120 days, to give AU 72 hours of notice of a strike beginning.  

A successful strike vote does not necessarily mean strike notice is immediately served (although it can be). Typically, a successful strike vote results in further bargaining as the employer confronts the possibility of an actual strike. 

To maximize the employer’s incentive to bargain a deal, unions seek the strongest possible ‘yes’ vote. This shows the employer there will be real consequences if they employer refuses to negotiate a fair deal. 

What you can do to show support the bargaining team   

The biggest thing you can do is to vote ‘yes’ to authorize a strike. This sends a clear message to the employer that their refusal to sign a fair deal will have consequences. This gives the bargaining team leverage to negotiate a deal before a strike. 

Things you can do today include changing your Office 365 profile image to the We Are AU + We Are AUFA image below. This visually demonstrates your support for the bargaining team. Right click on the image below and save it to your computer. Then follow these instructions to substitute the image in place of your regular profile picture.

Instructions for changing your image in Microsoft Teams can be found here.

You can also save the MS Teams backgrounds below to your hard drive and follow these instructions to make them available as a virtual background option in Teams. Your new MS Teams background will appear backwards (i.e., mirror image) when you activate it. Don’t worry, other people will not see this ‘mirror’ view. 

I hope to see you all at the townhall later this week. Please keep your eyes peeled for more information about AUFA strike plans over the next few days. 

In solidarity, 

Dave Powell 

AUFA President 

Analysis of University of Lethbridge Settlement

The University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) recently ratified a new settlement following a lengthy strike. This blog post provides an overview of the ULFA settlement. Overall, this settlement extends the public-sector and PSE wage pattern but with some additional monetary and language improvements.  

Term and Money 

This four-year deal has a term of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2024. The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for all salaries and grids is as follows: 

July 1, 2020:	0%
July 1, 2021:	0%
July 1, 2022:	0%
April 1, 2023:	1.25%
December 1, 2023:	1.5%
Additional increase December 1, 2023:	0.5% (not guaranteed)

The additional increase scheduled for December of 2023 is contingent upon the province achieving a real GDP for the 2023 calendar year that is at or above 2.7% as of February 2024. If this condition is met in February of 2024, U of L will retroactively apply an additional 0.5% COLA to December 1, 2023. If this condition is not met, then no additional increase will be forthcoming.  

This means the ULFA settlement could see an (uncompounded) COLA increase of between 2.75% and 3.25% over its four-year term. Even with the addition of gain-sharing payments, this settlement will not maintain the purchasing power of ULFA salaries over time. For example, year-over-year inflation as of January 2022 was 5.1%.  

The ULFA settlement matches the COLA agreed to by AUPE for its government services bargaining unit, the Mount Royal Faculty Association (MRFA) settlement from late February, and the Association of Academic Staff: University of Alberta (AASUA) from early March. This appears to be the current “secret’ financial mandate issued the government. 

Extra Compensation 

In addition to the COLA settlement, ULFA was able to negotiate some additional changes. Key changes that have clear monetary implications include: 

• Grid floors rise: Effective July 1, 2022, sessionals will see an 8% increase to the minimum stipends. Assistant and associate professors and some librarian grids will see a 10% increase to their grid floor. Assistant professor and one category of librarians will also see a 2% increase in salaries.  

• Benefits: The employee and family assistance plan will be extended to cover sessional and term staff. A flexible benefit spending plan of $250 per year for all members except sessional or term staff was created. 

The value of this additional compensation is unclear. Additional compensation in non-salary form is also a feature of the AASUA, MRFA and United Nurses of Alberta deals.  

Language 

There were a significant number of language changes which vary across categories of employees. Of relevance to AUFA members include improvements in equity language that include: 

• An expansion of the definition of service to better recognize work often done by members of equity-seeking groups, 

• A larger equity committee with clearer terms of reference and purpose, 

• A requirement to perform regular EDI studies, including pay equity studies, with redress of inequities normally within 12 months, 

• Clearer language on what medical information is required for an accommodation, and 

• New Indigenous evaluation language. 

You can read the full ratification package online.  

ULFA and the U of L also negotiated a returned-to-work protocol (a common thing after a strike). This protocol includes Board agreeing to allow ULFA members to purchase their pensionable service during the period of the strike as well as the Board agreeing to pay travel, professional, and research/grant expenses incurred during the strike. The U of L also agreed to destroy all surveillance data collected during the strike, and that ULFA members will face no strike-related disciplinary measures, reprisals, or legal action. 

Analysis 

The ULFA agreement provides a cost-of-living increase of between 2.75% and 3.25%. This mirrors the provincial and PSE wage pattern (and the government mandate). This is the same deal that AU offered AUFA on February 28 after filed for mediation. Additional compensation, in the form of benefits, grid, and salary improvements, adds to the overall improvement of compensation. 

ULFA also appears to have achieved some language improvements, particularly around equity issues. Notably, the ULFA deal does not appear to contain any of the massive language rollbacks that AU is trying to push on AUFA members.  

To get this deal, ULFA was required to strike for approximately 40 calendar days. The U of L was not available to bargain for the first 23 calendar days. One way to read this delay by the U of L is as a form of punishment for ULFA striking.  

Social media comments by ULFA members also suggest that the government was very much involved in the structure of the eventual agreement. This includes reports that the U of L negotiator had to call to get permission from the government to agree to certain outcomes. Whether this was actually the case or whether this was some sort of elaborate “talking to the manager in the back” ruse is unclear. 

ULFA’s language improvements likely reflect that, in order to get ULFA to accept the government’s lousy wage-mandate, the U of L had to agree to some of ULFA’s other proposals. Time will tell if AU prefers this option to a work stoppage. 

Jason Foster, Chair 

AUFA Bargaining Committee 

Bob Barnetson, Chair 

Job Action Committee 

Bargaining Update: Mediation Fails After Employer Makes Mockery of Process

AU and AUFA met in formal mediation with mediator Mark Asbell on March 8. Mediation concluded at the end of the day without a mediator’s recommendation. This blog post explains what happened, why mediation ended, and what happens next.

The parties met with the mediator at 9:00 am. After introductions, the mediator met with each party separately to discuss “hills to die on” and outstanding issues where movement is possible. This is a normal part of the mediation process and the basic goal is to find common ground as a means of moving negotiations forward in a productive way.

For its part, AUFA made clear AU’s withdrawal of damaging language aimed at undermining the rights of professionals remains an AUFA priority. We also stressed that a fair wage settlement, reasonable language around designation, and AU’s withdrawal of language limiting Research and Study Leave (RSL) leave for both academics and professionals were equally important for members. In keeping with the normal “give and take” of the mediation process, AUFA also indicated areas where we were open to discussion, including cost-of-living adjustments (COLA).

Mid-morning the mediator informed AUFA that AU was preparing a “full proposal” for our consideration and requested AUFA give them a couple hours to complete that work. Even though AU had already had almost a full week to prepare a counter-proposal, we agreed. A couple hours turned into almost eight hours.

At almost 5:00 pm, AUFA was informed of the “new” proposal. The proposal was nearly identical to their February 28 proposal except for a handful of minor changes to appeal processes and equity language. The proposal includes the elimination of professional RSL and the “buy-out” for pennies on the dollar. It had the same severe concessions with no movement on academic RSL, professional lay-offs or COLA. None of AUFA’s substantive proposals were considered.

It was conveyed to AUFA this was “their last proposal”.

The AUFA bargaining team deliberated on this unfortunate turn of events. We had fully been expecting at the very least a serious AU effort at reaching a mutually satisfactory deal. What we were left with instead was a wasted day and a Board proposal not materially different from its previous proposal.

AUFA came into mediation serious about trying to find an agreement and communicated that clearly to the mediator. In deliberations, AUFA came to the conclusion that AU entered mediation with no intention of finding a deal and used the day to waste time and frustrate all involved. In short, AUFA decided that AU was making a mockery of the mediation process.

While AUFA had booked the rest of the week to devote to mediation, we now believe AU was not serious about finding a solution. With that realization we requested the mediator step away and report that no mediated agreement was possible. Once the mediator issues that report, formal mediation concludes.

It is the bargaining team’s belief that AU is trying to force a strike in an effort to bust the union. We do not want a strike, but will take the steps we need to protect the interest of AUFA members.

The next step is a 14-day cooling off period, where neither party can take any further steps under the Labour Relations Code (although bargaining is allowed to continue). The parties have set aside time for mediation this week and we have two days of bargaining scheduled for next week. Despite our disappointment, AUFA continues to want to move bargaining forward, so the bargaining team will assess our next steps.

During the 14 days, AUFA can can take steps to apply for a strike vote of members. AU can also move towards a Board vote to lock-out AUFA members. After either vote, the parties must give 72 hours’ notice to activate a strike or lockout. Bargaining can continue throughout.

In the coming days AUFA will offer further communications about next steps and set up a town hall to discuss the state of bargaining.

Jason Foster, Chair

AUFA Bargaining Team