Solidarity

Workload Increases in the Faculty of Business

It has been brought to AUFA’s attention that approximately thirty tenure-track faculty and academic coordinators in the Faculty of Business have been asked to use a new formula for calculating their teaching workload that will require these individuals to take four to five times their current teaching load. 

AUFA has sent a letter to Provost Dr. Matthew Prineas and President Alex Clark requesting clarification on this new process for workload planning and the resulting workload increase. We have highlighted these important factors: 

This process violates Article 3.3.4 of the collective agreement, which requires workload to be equitable both within and between centres and equivalent academic units, as well as defining workload as no more than “what is reasonably possible for individuals to accomplish in a working year.” 

  • These workload changes are happening only in the Faculty of Business. 

  • While we don’t have good information about the current distribution of work across AU faculties, the average teaching load is roughly one block, or 32 undergraduate students, along with responsibility for coordinating 3 to 5 courses, in which the registration numbers for individual courses may vary.  

Accompanied by the threat of layoffs for non-compliance to the revised workload demands, Faculty of Business members are unable to negotiate the terms of their workload in accordance with Article 3 in the collective agreement. 

AUFA will support members who are under pressure to agree to unreasonable workloads including interventions on negotiations, grieving conditions of work, etc. 

Please feel free to reach out to AUFA if you have any questions or concerns and/or if your workload is changing significantly. 

Help us to understand teaching workload distribution by completing this form: https://forms.gle/yrcnqRoL2wYnnSjy8 

 

AUFA Condemns Employer Disruption and Mismanagement; Calls for Concrete Action

AUFA condemns the Board of Governors’ callous firing of Dr. Scott who lost his wife only weeks ago. The surprise announcement of the termination of former AU President Dr. Peter Scott and the appointment of Dr. Alex Clark to fill this role has left faculty and staff at Athabasca University reeling.  AUFA members have been experiencing callousness and disruption beyond the recent upheavals and actions of the BOG and are growing weary of the cycle of crises facing this institution – a cycle that is taking its toll on staff morale and student enrolment alike. Yet we also remain committed to the university’s open mission and hopeful for some stability and calm so we can focus on our work in service of this mission.  

This blog post will analyze how we got here and outline a path forward. Our core message to the university administration and the Board of Governors is that, to right this ship, faculty and staff need to lead the way.  

Problematic Process 

The sudden announcement of a change in presidents left many wondering, how did this happen? While the full story likely won’t ever be revealed, it is clear from multiple (and in some cases, conflicting) media reports that the process by which this decision was made was extremely problematic, including the callous way in which Dr. Scott was “released.” It is difficult not to see the roots of this decision in the heavy-handed approach to AU overhauling board membership and issuing institutional directives adopted by the Minister of Advanced Education Demetrios Nicolaides since last March.  

AUFA is aligned with the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations (CAFA) and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) in calling for all presidential searches at post-secondary institutions to be as open and transparent as possible. Instead of being surprised by the announcement of a new leader selected through a completely closed and secretive process, faculty, staff, students, and the broader community should have meaningful exposure to potential candidates and an opportunity to provide input to the selection process.  

While we remain critical of the process that got us to this point, AUFA calls on Dr. Clark to provide very different leadership than what we’ve experienced over the last several years – one that is more responsive and prioritizes stability and employee well-being over unproductive disruption.  

“Disharmony”  

The Board Chair referenced “staff strife and disharmony” as a key factor motivating this decision. We might characterize the situation slightly differently, but it does point to the worsening of both morale and working conditions over the past several years. AUFA members have weathered blatant union-busting, aggressive bargaining, continuous and cumulative breaches of our rights under the collective agreement, and a generally callous disregard for our well-being. AUFA staff and volunteers can scarcely keep up with the onslaught of contract violations, disciplines, and other issues facing our colleagues.  

While AUFA as a union is occasionally vilified by university leaders or painted as the source of problems, the reality is that we simply would not have to fight so much if university leadership, particularly decision makers within Human Resources, demonstrated even the slightest bit more care and regard for employee well-being. Well-intentioned, good faith efforts to raise concerns about employee wellness are routinely ignored or rejected.  

AUFA is committed to doing its part to meet in good faith and attempt to resolve current, long-standing, and emergent issues directly with the employer and to reduce the number of cases that are escalated to arbitration at the labour board. We call on the university administration to come to the table with the same good faith.  

Words and Actions  

One of the most common complaints we have heard from AUFA members over several years of regular surveys and other engagement efforts is the disconnect between the rhetoric of university leadership and their concrete actions. This has been experienced most acutely in the university’s so-called commitment to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI).  

Despite proclamations about intentions to champion EDI, including signing the Scarborough Charter, previous initiatives left much to be desired. We still are waiting for a university-wide plan and policy, supported by appropriate personnel and overseen by a body independent from HR, for fostering an equitable, diverse, and inclusive work environment and articulating institutional accountabilities. While we wait, faculty, staff, and students who are experiencing systematic forms of gender, sex, racial, anti-Indigenous, and anti-Black harassment are left with little recourse.  

AU’s actions and rhetoric on EDI need to come into closer alignment – urgently, not pushed to some distant future. AUFA calls on the university administration to prioritize the establishment of an independent Equity Office that has both an appropriate mandate and sufficient resources to be effective.  

Mismanagement 

Over at least the past year AUFA members and our colleagues have been grappling with increasingly unsustainable workloads and worsening working conditions, making it more and more difficult to maintain the services and quality of courses that students deserve and expect.  

There are many contributing factors, but topping the list are the many ways in which IT functions have been extremely poorly managed by top leaders while also being increasingly severed from academic oversight and governance. From the poorly handled reorganization of the IT department to the incessant pushing forward with ill-fitting and costly technological changes, staff within IT have been working within an increasingly corrosive working environment, and negative impacts are being felt across nearly all university departments.  

We want a chance to be excited about change, to exercise our professional judgment, and to actually use the skills for which we were hired in the service of the university’s open mission. We want to break out of unproductive siloes and to understand how our individual work contributes to achievable, shared goals. AUFA calls on the university administration to pause the implementation of the Integrated Learning Environment and prioritize staff agency and input in an honest and transparent reassessment of technological change initiatives.  

Time to Start Listening 

Of course, there are forces at play that are larger than AU alone. The post-secondary sector across the province and beyond is strained by many of the same issues, and the current provincial government has contributed to many crises and challenges across institutions. But AU is not simply a victim of circumstances. There are many things that are fully within the university’s power to change.  

The top-down, managerial, corporate-style leadership adopted over the past several years is not working, nor is the increased reliance on external vendors. Our strength as a university comes from within – the dedication and commitment of those who do the real work in the service of students is the reason AU has survived despite abysmal failures of leadership.  

As a faculty association, we have frequently engaged our membership in order to gather meaningful feedback and input on both internal union decisions and broader university questions. Our understanding of the current situation is grounded in countless hours of respectful listening, reading, writing, and discussions with colleagues. Yet we have been consistently ignored, sidelined, or belittled by successive university leaders. We expect that our colleagues in our sibling unions have had a similar experience.  

We believe that, for the university to achieve stability and grow in its mandate as an open public institution, senior administrators and the board of governors need to hear, respect, and meaningfully respond to the concerns and suggestions raised by faculty, staff, and students. Better yet, AU needs to move beyond listening and empower faculty and staff to actively and meaningfully participate in decision making processes, including those at the highest level.  

AUFA calls on the Board of Governors and the university administration to refocus on core, mission-driven work; to prioritize stability and faculty and staff well-being; to empower employees to exercise meaningful agency; and to strengthen collegial governance by increasing transparency and participation.  

Rhiannon Rutherford, AUFA President 

Your Turn 

The AUFA executive will be identifying more specific priorities to present to the new university leadership. Use this space to share your priorities or any other thoughts about the recent announcement and how AUFA should respond.  

AUFA in Solidarity with MUNFA and CBUFA Job Action

Monday, January 30th, the faculty association of Memorial University of Newfoundland (approx.. 850 members) joined Cape Breton University faculty association (approx.. 230 members) and went on strike. Like Alberta, their region has suffered targeted cuts to the sector in recent years. AUFA offers our solidarity with their job action. We recognize that when faculty members at one university have the courage to strike, they are fighting on behalf of us all. 

Both universities face similar issues to AUFA: phasing out of tenure-track faculty for increased reliance on contract and lower wage positions and the erosion of collegial governance. AUFA is watching one (of many) especially worrisome bargaining issue that MUNFA is facing: the introduction of a two-tier payment scheme for post-retirement health benefits.  

We also stand with MUNFA in its insistence that faculty have an equal voice in decisions that affect the university community as a whole. The erosion of collegial governance affects us all, and safeguarding bicameral governance works to ensure an equitable distribution of power. 

The administration’s current offer to MUNFA includes a 12% salary increase over four years, and other added benefits. MUNFA’s president, Ash Hossain told the CBC, “We are fighting for principles. It's not about money.” We wish to applaud MUNFA for its commitment to principles and to the welfare of others. MUNFA’s commitment to standing on principle, beyond material gain, to continue fighting for those who still do not have fair working conditions in their union is the backbone of equity. We are grateful that MUNFA recognizes and upholds principles of relationality and mutual support. 

Memorial has a form letter that students and supporters can send to demand a fair and equitable deal. You can sign it here, or post in support on social media with the hashtag #FairDealAtMUN and tag the association @MUNFaculty. 

Starting Social Groups to Combat Isolation

A post from Heather McLean (Equity Committee) and Kristin Rodier (Constituency Rep)  

  

Hello!   

At AUFA, we have heard from members that they want more opportunities to bridge the gap of social isolation working remotely. As we all know, working online can be isolating, and lonely. News reports that inflation is causing isolation to rise in some populations are circulating, as well as research confirming what many of us feel (or, rather don’t feel) communicating primarily through screens.  

In response to member concerns, we are interested in creating more gathering space/spaces for socializing, solidarity, and care. We’ve heard from members they are struggling with a sense of detachment. We are interested in finding ways to humanize our work lives and build connections with each other as we face what seem like growing workloads and new predicaments.  

For about a year now, we’ve hosted a monthly meet-up group for casual chats and support for newer faculty. We reached out to AUFA after we were hired in 2021 to see if something like this existed, but it didn’t. So, we asked AUFA for a list of faculty who were hired around the same time as us, and reached out across the university to meet others who were onboarding at the same time. We talked about getting to know AU systems, pandemic parenting, online teaching, our pets, our gardens, frozen drink recipes — so many topics! And we learned a lot from each other about practical work related topics and built a friendly sense of community. A few times, we invited people from different areas of the university (course production, student services, media relations, etc.) This group has not added any new members in some time, and many of us have found that year 2 and 3 of the job is much much busier. So, the group is waning a bit. But this model really helped us through a difficult period—and here we are working together! 

We are asking AUFA members for suggestions for platforms for online engagement where we can be ourselves and build solidarities. This is important for our wellbeing and for preparation and solidarity ahead of another round of bargaining to begin next year. Any thoughts?  

  
Some of our ideas:  

  • Monthly Cafés and/or beer hang outs. Would you like to host (virtually) or organize a meet up where you live? Would you want them on a theme? Suggestions for physical meet ups?   

  • Walks or outdoor meet ups with or without dogs.   

  • More professional meetups online where we learn about each others jobs, professional development, retirement, co-working groups for writing, research, tenure and promotion, or other topics you are seeking feedback on.  

  • Online engagement that is fun—games, trivia—you tell us! 

  • Discussions on mental health, work from home life, sharing ideas about ways to humanize life online with each other, students and our communities.  

 

What would you like to see? Be creative!   

What would you like to volunteer for/participate in? AUFA appreciates you!  

 

Heather and Kristin 

AUFA Solidarity Statement

Public allegations have been made that during the public session of the Athabasca University Board of Governors meeting on December 9, 2022, a member of the Athabasca University Board of Governors made racist and exclusionary comments. This board member’s comments are alleged to have been made in an open question period following a presentation made by two Athabasca University student leaders who were highlighting the extraordinary financial pressures AU students are under.  

AUFA is releasing the following statement:  

AUFA condemns all forms of overt, covert, and structural racism. Please refer to our equity statement to understand the breadth of AUFA’s commitment to anti-racism and decolonization.  

We value diversity in our students, and we care deeply about students’ learning conditions, especially their feelings of belonging at AU. We therefore denounce the alleged comments that specific students and/or programs of study are less valuable or less worthy of inclusion in our university community.  

We are in solidarity with our colleagues who have been harmed by racism, and we support their right to work in an environment free of racism. We acknowledge that when alleged comments like this come to light at our workplace, people with lived experiences of racism are harmed. Racism in the workplace causes significant physiological and psychological harm, making the workplace a distressing space and increasing the efforts needed in order to conduct one’s work. AUFA is working to be a place where these experiences can be brought forward and members can trust they will be believed, taken seriously, and their concerns acted upon.  

We are in solidarity with the critical work that the Athabasca University Students’ Union (AUSU) is doing to advocate for our students, including their call for a tuition freeze and increased financial support for students. It matters if students are increasing their use of food banks. If students are having to drop out or take fewer courses because the cost of tuition is prohibitive, this is a serious concern for all of us.  

In lieu of an AU equity office to which to take this issue, AUFA has sent a formal request for information clarifying the alleged comments to AU President, Peter Scott, and Sara Kunto, Chief Governance Officer. These allegations are very serious, and they have already had harmful effects among students, staff, and faculty. We look to our leaders for an investigation and an appropriate remedy. 

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

Upcoming AUFA Elections

Elections for the AUFA Executive and committees will take place at the upcoming Spring General Meeting on Tuesday, May 31, 1:30–4:00pm MST. This blog post outlines the positions that will be elected and highlights other ways to get involved in AUFA.  

Nominations for all elected positions will be open until the final call during the Spring General Meeting (that is, individuals can be nominated from the floor during the meeting). However, if you would like to nominate yourself (for any position) in advance and have a candidate statement included in the meeting package, please send this to Brenda Skayman by end of day Friday, May 20.  

Executive 

The AUFA Executive includes five officers (President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Secretary, and Past President) and up to nine member representatives (also called constituency representatives). Each of these positions, with the exception of Past President, will be up for election as part of the Spring General Meeting. The one-year term will begin on July 1, 2022, and end on June 30, 2023.  

The time commitment and scope for these positions varies, as there are few rigid requirements in the current AUFA bylaws. In addition to regularly attending AUFA Executive meetings, officers or member representatives may chair or serve on other AUFA committees, attend conferences or meetings of umbrella or allied organizations, or participate in other initiatives undertaken by the AUFA Executive. For example, the incoming AUFA Executive may choose to pursue projects related to the Equity Audit that is currently underway.  

Questions about any of these positions can be directed to Jolene Armstrong, AUFA Past President, who chairs the Nominating Committee.  

In addition, the AUFA Executive includes non-voting positions: the two AUFA staff members (Executive Director and Professional Officer) and the AUFA representative on the AU Board of Governors (who is currently one year into a three-year term).  

Elected Committees 

Also up for election will be several committee positions. The AUFA bylaws state that both the Equity and Social Committees will “normally” consist of five members each, though in previous general meetings the AUFA membership has extended more flexibility to these committees to expand this number. The terms for elected members of these committees will be one year, from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023. For more information, contact the AUFA office to be connected with current committee members.  

As well, there are two committees outlined in the collective agreement that will be up for election this year, each with two-year terms (from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2024): 

  • Professional appeals: Five non-probationary, full-time professional staff members—three primary members, two alternates. See Article 9.5.10.a in the collective agreement for more.  

  • Professional appeals with respect to position evaluation: Five non-probationary, full-time professional staff members—three primary members, two alternates. See Article 9.6.4 in the collective agreement for more. 

There is also an academic appeals committee (Article 9.5.10.b in the collective agreement), but this committee is currently in the middle of a two-year term and will be up for election in 2023. Contact the AUFA office or Jolene Armstrong for more information about these committees.  

Appointed Committees  

There are also a number of committees that are appointed by the AUFA Executive.  

The AUFA Executive is currently seeking interest in serving on the Occupational Health and Safety committee. Two members are required to serve on the single, central joint committee that includes employer representatives as well as representatives from each bargaining unit (AUFA, CUPE, and AUPE). These positions are appointed by the AUFA Executive; contact the AUFA office or current OHS representatives (Rhiannon Rutherford or Bob Barnetson) for more information.  

Other appointed committees include the Grievance, Membership Engagement, and Joint Benefits committees. Contact the AUFA office for more information on these committees.  

 

Jolene Armstrong 

AUFA Past President 

Chair, Nominating Committee 

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