AUFA member’s open letter to AU Research Office about Elsevier’s PURE

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boycott_Elsevier_2.png

From: Mark McCutcheon  
Sent: February 1, 2023 9:27 AM 

Subject: Re: Researcher Profile Data Request (Stage 2)  

I’m writing to reiterate my considered and principled refusal to provide any data, personal or professional, to any Elsevier service or platform, including PURE. I have several reasons for standing by this decision. 

First, AU’s intellectual property policy recognizes that intellectual property rights (e.g. copyright) in research belong not to the university but to the individual researcher. (See 4.3.c at https://www.athabascau.ca/university-secretariat/_documents/policy/intellectual-property-policy.pdf). That policy empowers me to manage my research activity and products as I best see fit. The university has no claim to my intellectual property. That said, I do allow the university to host or represent my research in appropriate forums and spaces – meaning those aligned with Open Access and, indeed, with our own university’s open mission. For example, the AU library’s “AU Space” open access repository now includes most of my published work. But beyond what I decide to permit the university to license, the university has no claim on my research. 

Second, my commitment to open access research and publishing is squarely opposed to Elsevier as a massive corporation that, for years, has attacked and worked against the open access movement. I have published work that openly criticizes Elsevier. I deliberately publish in journals and books that are not Elsevier-owned. Since 2018 I have served AU Press as Chair of its editorial board; AU Press only published in open access. And for a decade I have been my Faculty’s academic rep on the office of the president’s ad hoc copyright committee (CC’d). Our work in that committee has focused on promoting and developing open access, and on organizing and lobbying scholars across Canada against repeated legislative attempts to toughen copyright law. My name is on several petitions and scholarly mobilizations against Elsevier. In light of that principled opposition, I categorically will not contribute anything to Elsevier, because I refuse to help the business, reputation, or profitability of a firm that has so persistently attacked AU’s mission for so long. 

Third, I understand this situation as a question of academic freedom, per Article 11 of the AUFA collective agreement (see https://aufa.ca/collective-agreement). That article includes this language: “Members of the University community are entitled, regardless of prescribed doctrine, to freedom in carrying out research and in publishing the results thereof” (p. 52). That language entitles me to conduct and share my research as I see fit. Since my research publication record has dealt extensively with the issue of open access, I consider it an infringement on my academic freedom to be obliged to provide free data to an organization I resolutely oppose and have published my opposition to. To participate in an Elsevier platform would for me pose a risk of reputational harm. In this context I must point out that there is a risk of reputational harm to AU, not only because becoming an Elsevier client would make a mockery of our hard-earned position as “Canada’s open university,” but also because our copyright committee has, for decades, taken a leadership role among Canadian universities in lobbying the federal government for fairer copyright and in organizing research universities across the country in such mobilizing efforts.  

Fourth, I note that PURE has been used at other universities for performance assessment purposes. AU’s administration has not yet spoken about that potential function, to my knowledge. I would, however, point out that performance assessment at AU for AUFA members is a negotiated matter of annual reporting, detailed in Article 3.3.4 of our collective agreement. If AU intends to use PURE for assessing the performance of faculty members, doing so could run afoul of that Article if the process is not properly negotiated in bargaining. 

For these reasons, I am refusing to provide any data to an Elsevier platform. With this notice, I would also ask the university not to list or name me on the PURE platform, even in a placeholder capacity.  

Thank you for hearing me on this matter. 

best 

Mark A. McCutcheon (he/him) 

Chair, Centre for Humanities 

Professor, Literary Studies 

Past president, CAFA (2015-17 

Past president, AUFA (2013-14) 

Athabasca University 

AUFA Statement on Academic Freedom for CUPE 3911

Our academic colleagues in CUPE 3911 who perform tutorial work at Athabasca University are currently bargaining with the employer and a key item for the CUPE team is granting academic freedom to their members.

AUFA executive has moved that we stand in solidarity with CUPE 3911 and that all academic workers must have academic freedom. Freedom to pursue scholarship without interference or censure of the employer is fundamental to academic work. All workers deserve freedom of conscience at their workplace.

In solidarity,

David Powell

President, AUFA

Bargaining Update: Small Moves But Huge Gulf Remains

On February 28, the AUFA and AU bargaining teams met for a day of regular bargaining in advance of formal mediation. AUFA’s decision to apply for formal mediation seems to have had an impact, as AU came to the table much more focused and with a different tone.

AU presented a full “new” package for consideration. Most of AU’s package remains unchanged from their January 31 position, but there were a few significant changes. This post offers the highlights of the new package. The committee will provide a fuller analysis following another day of bargaining on Wednesday, March 2.

It is noteworthy that AU’s offer was made without prejudice, meaning AU can withdraw this offer at any time and revert to it January 31 position. This is a common bargaining tactic to allow the parties to explore settlement without committing a new position. A party can also use this tactic to apply pressure. For example, if AU and AUFA make progress at the table but then come to impasse, AU can threaten to return to its January 31 position in the hope that AUFA will knuckle under to avoid losing any progress towards an agreement that was made.

AU’s January 21 proposal was for four years of no COLA increases. The February 28 offer saw AU alter its cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) proposal. AU’s proposal is now:

• July 1, 2020: 0%

• July 1, 2021: 0%

• April 1, 2023: 1.25%

• December 1, 2023: 1.5%

• An additional 0.5% applied February 29, 2024, retroactive to December 1, 2023, if forecasts for Alberta GDP are above 2.7%

AU’s new proposal matches the agreement AUPE signed for its core government services members and is similar to Mount Royal’s agreement. That said, Mount Royal also made some financial gains in other areas amounting to approximately an additional 1% in members’ pockets (a fuller analysis of the MRU deal will follow later this week).

AU also doubled down on its proposal to make professional staff ineligible for research and study leave (RSL). AU has added a proposal promising to make a one-time payment to professional staff to sign-away their accrued leave days (earlier they promised to honour those accrued days).

Specifically, AU is proposing a one-time payment to each professional who has accrued days owed. They have allotted $2.1 million for this payment. Currently, they propose an equal payout to each eligible member, which amounts to between $8000 and $10,000 (depending upon how many eligible members there are). This proposal expires March 31 if no tentative agreement is reached.

This proposal is a classic employer strategy of dangling short-term cash in trade for a long-term loss. The time limited nature of the offer also suggests it is a pressure tactic to force a quick deal. The AUFA bargaining team believes this offer significantly shortchanges professional members over the long term. At present, professionals earn 2 months of research and study leave entitlements (at 80% of salary) for each year of service. This means a professional with an annual salary of $80,000 would earn roughly $10,666 in RSL leave entitlements each year.

Other changes to AU’s proposal include:

• AU has tabled specific language to Article 3, which addresses academic appointment, tenure and promotion, and determination of duties. The changes are sweeping and include merging the tenure and promotion processes, and establishing a university-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee mandated to review tenure and promotion applications. AU’s proposal institutes a much more detailed set of criteria for tenure and promotion. They also create a separate tenure process for Academic Coordinators and weaken provisions around determination of duties.

• AU has offered to withdraw their proposals to amend Article 11, Academic and Professional Freedom, and have resorted to the status quo.

• AU has offered to accept much of AUFA’s proposal regarding compassionate leave for dying or serious ill family members. They have accepted an extended leave of 27 weeks (which matches current legislative provisions), but still restrict it to risk of death. AUFA will continue to push for a broader scope.

• AU has offered to withdraw proposals regarding external professional activities, agreeing to maintain status quo.

• AU has also offered to withdraw a proposal for new language allowing for temporary lay-off of professional staff.

Again, keep in mind this “progress” can be undone at any point because AU has made its offer on a without prejudice basis.

As mentioned, the bulk of their new package retains their existing positions on key issues. AU continues to demand significant concessions from professional staff, including exclusion from RSL leave, stripping access to appeal processes, weakened layoff provisions, and undermining probation review processes. They also retain their cuts to academics’ RSL provisions and continue to reject proposals to improve equity provisions in the agreement.

The parties meet again on Wednesday March 2, where AUFA will present its own renewed full package in an effort to find a deal. Formal mediation is slated to start next week.

On behalf of the bargaining committee,

Jason Foster

Bargaining Committee Chair

Results of Strike and Strike Pay Consultation

In December, the Job Action Committee (JAC) provided AUFA’s Executive with some preliminary recommendations to five strike-related questions:

• Who will be required to actively participate in a strike?

• What labour will be withdrawn and what labour will be permitted to continue?

• How will AUFA allocate strike pay?

• What strike duties will members be asked to perform?

• How will we resolve disputes about these issues during a work stoppage?

AUFA’s Executive then sought feedback from AUFA members on those preliminary recommendations.

Nearly 100 members offered up their thoughts. Overall, there was strong support for the recommendations (ranging from 90.5% to 98.9%) and a number of very useful suggestions.

This blog summarizes the responses and indicates some of the changes we’ve made as a result. The revised recommendations will be presented during a townhall meeting in later January (tentatively January 19, from 2-3 pm; invitation and agenda forthcoming) with an online ratification vote to follow. This blog also answers some of the questions that were raised by members in the comment section of the online consultation.

Who should strike?

JAC recommended that all members be asked to withdraw their labour (i.e., strike) excepting:

• those on maternity and/or parental leave,

• those on workers’ compensation,

• those on long-term disability, or

• those who receive an exemption (adjudicated by a committee).

When polled, 94.7% of respondents supported this recommendation.

Throughout the consultation, there was strong support for exempting members who are on research and study leave (RSL) from striking. The underlying arguments were RSLs take a long time to arrange, and that it’d be unfair to interrupt them.

JAC agreed, and adjusted its recommendation:

All members be asked to withdraw their labour (i.e., strike) excepting:

• those on maternity and/or parental leave,

• those on workers’ compensation,

• those on long-term disability,

• those on research and study leave, or

• those who receive an exemption (adjudicated by a committee).

What labour should be withdrawn?

JAC recommended that during a strike:

• academic members be directed to stop teaching, coordinating their courses, and performing university service work, and

• professional members be directed to not engage in their professional duties and to stop their university service work.

When polled, 98.9% of respondents supported this recommendation, and as such, JAC has left this recommendation intact.

How will strike pay be allocated?

JAC recommended that strike pay be allocated to members who:

• provided contact and banking information (a practical requirement)

• withdrew their labour as set out above, and

• participated in strike duties.

When polled, 93.7% of respondents supported this recommendation, and as such, JAC has left this recommendation intact.

What strike duties will AUFA members be asked to perform?

JAC recommended that AUFA members be asked to perform approximately 2 hours of strike duties per day and provided an illustrative list of strike duties. Members who are on casual sick leave (or become ill during a strike) would be excused.

When polled, 90.5% of respondents supported this recommendation.

Member comments focused on two issues.

• Several members requested AUFA ensure there be strike duties that could be performed by members who could not picket in person.

• Several members suggested that greater flexibility around the time (e.g., requiring 10 hours per week, rather than 2 hours per day) would

It has long been AUFA’s intention to ensure everyone would have accessible picketing options. This was clarified in a December blog post. Shifting from 2 hours per day to 10 hours per week also makes sense.

In light of this feedback, JAC has adjusted its recommendation to be:

All members would be expected to perform 10 hours of strike activities per week, excepting those who are sick or who receive an exemption.

How will AUFA resolve disputes about these issues during a work stoppage?

JAC recommended AUFA set up a Strike Pay Eligibility Committee to adjudicate disputes about strike pay and other related matters. The committee will also administer all requests for exemptions to the general approach set out above.

While every AUFA member should share the costs of a strike equally, it is important to have a fair process by which we can address instances when the strike disproportionately impacts some members and accommodate them. Since this is our first time through a strike, we also need a process to handle events that we haven’t foreseen.

When polled, 95.7% of respondents supported this recommendation.

Member comments focused on committee composition and selection. JAC’s original proposal was to have the Vice-President chair the committee with six members appointed by the Executive (this is how AUFA usually creates ad hoc committees). Members suggested electing committee members and ensuring the committee had an equal number of academic and professional members.

In light of this feedback, JAC has adjusted its recommendation such that the committee would be chaired by the Vice-President and comprise three academic members and three professional members selected via a membership nomination and election process. The Executive will draft the terms of reference for this committee.

Member Questions

Q. Why is AUFA proposing using direct deposit instead of e-transfers for strike pay?

A. Direct deposit can be more easily automated (reducing the work and errors), creates an easier paper trail to audit, and allows for easier correction of errors.

Q. How can I digitally picket when I’m not on social media.

A. As set out in the December picketing post, there will be several digital picketing options, including ones that do not require access to social media. That said, social media accounts are also easy to create and operate. You can also create an anonymous and/or second social media account if you are concerned about your privacy or professional reputation.

Q. What happens if I withdraw my labour but don’t perform strike activities?

A. If the membership ratifies the criteria JAC is recommending for strike pay eligibility and you choose not to meet one of the criteria and do not receive an exemption, then you will not receive strike pay. The rationale for this is that everyone benefits from the collective agreement, thus everyone must share the costs (including performing strike activities) associated with winning improvements.

Q. How will AUFA be communicating about a strike to students?

A. AUFA is in periodic contact with the student associations. When a strike appears imminent, AUFA will provide student-directed communications as well as talking points for AUFA members should students contact them directly.

Q. What will happen if I am on vacation and a strike commences?

A. Members who are on vacation when a strike commences will be expected to withdraw their labour and receive strike pay. Members on vacation at the start of a strike whose vacation circumstances would impede them performing strike activities, can request a temporary exemption to that requirement from the Strike Pay Eligibility Committee.

Q. Why are you focused on a strike instead of a work to rule campaign?

A. It comes down to an assessment of risk and reward. Working to rule is a form of a strike. In order to legally strike (whether that means working to rule or withdrawing our labour entirely), AUFA needs to be in a legal strike position (we’re a ways from that at the moment) and serve notice of a strike on the employer.

When a strike commences, the collective agreement is no longer in effect. This allows the employer to impose whatever terms and conditions it likes upon us. Typically, employers impose their most recent offer. Continuing to work (even if it is working to rule) in these circumstances would allow the employer to implement things like their proposals for cheaper layoffs and less academic and professional freedom.

Working to rule, while doubtless an irritant to the employer, would not exert much pressure on them to settle since working to rule would not profoundly disrupt operations and we would be working to rule under the terms they want. AUFA’s counter move to an employer imposing its terms on us is to have a full strike (which would apply significant pressure to settle on AU). Given this, it makes sense to focus on a strike, rather than a work-to-rule campaign.

JAC hopes this update is useful. The townhall agenda (with a full set of proposals) will be circulated next week by email. In the meantime, you can send question to barnetso@athabascau.ca .

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

Bargaining Update

AU and AUFA met last week for two days of bargaining (October 25 & 29). AU continues to refuse to present 12 of its proposals, including its monetary proposals. The AUFA bargaining team once again re-iterated how this refusal is blocking progress at the table.

Academic and professional freedom (Article 11) and Article 4, which relates to professional’s probation, performance and promotion were the primary topics of discussion. The parties also agreed in principle to some small housekeeping changes to Article 20 regarding external professional activities (i.e., work outside of AU), although some larger issues in that article remain.

On academic and professional freedom AUFA provided a counter-proposal which would protect key elements of academic freedom and enhance professional freedom. While AU did not provide a formal response to the proposal, AU repeated its claim that professionals do not need protection because no professionals have ever been disciplined for speaking out or criticizing the employer. AU continued to make this claim even after AUFA provided an example of a professional being disciplined for expressing professional concerns over an employer decision.

On the topic of professionals’ probation, performance, and promotion (Article 4), the parties had extended discussions over AU’s proposal to eliminate key processes such as the probation review and position evaluation committees. These processes ensure that decisions regarding probation and position classification are fair to the member. These rollbacks are accompanied by a proposal to reduce the probation period to 12 months (from 2 years).

AU’s proposal is a classic “carrot-and-stick” proposal. AU is offering something that benefits the members (i.e., shorter probationary periods) but has paired it with series of measures that profoundly undermine members’ rights (i.e., fair probationary review and position evaluation processes). AU has not presented a compelling rationale for reducing the fairness of the probationary and position evaluation processes. AUFA continues to advocate for fairer processes for these kinds of decisions, including resolving disputes over workloads and performance evaluations.

AU’s insistence on rolling back rights for professionals with the justification that professionals don’t deserve these rights because other universities don’t provide the same level of protection to their professionals is an example of a wedge strategy. A wedge strategy seeks rollbacks affecting a subset of the full membership. These rollbacks are often paired with some sort of minor improvement for other members. This strategy is designed to erode the solidarity of a union’s members by incentivizing the majority of members to vote for a small gain that benefits them at the expense of the subgroup targeted for rollbacks. In subsequent rounds, the employer builds on the animosity it has created by targeting a different group for rollbacks.

Rolling back rights of professionals is contrary to the university’s longstanding commitment to relative parity between professional and academic groups. AUFA argues this parity is warranted because education delivery at AU is more integrated than at bricks-and-mortar institutions and professionals are more involved in all aspects of the university’s mandate. In this way, AU is unique and the collective agreement reflects this uniqueness.

When AUFA reminded the employer’s bargaining team of AU’s uniqueness as an institution, it was told that AU being unique is “dangerous”. “One problem we face is thinking that we are unique”, AU co-chair Margaret Kierylo warned. “We are exactly like other institutions”.

AUFA believes this drive to separate professionals and academics is behind many of AU’s bargaining proposals, and may even be reflected in their monetary offer when it is finally presented. If AUFA’s members allow AU to roll back rights for professionals in this round of bargaining, AU will almost certainly come for the rights of academics in the next round of bargaining.

Finally, AUFA provided 11 dates in November and December where the team is available and willing to bargain. AU was unable to respond to those dates. AUFA, once again, must wait for AU to offer dates. AUFA is growing concerned about the lack of AU’s availability to bargain. Bargaining for a few days each month is insufficient to reach a deal in a reasonable timeframe.

As a reminder, AUFA is holding a town hall meeting for all members tomorrow, Tuesday November 2, at 10:00 am, to discuss the status of bargaining and to answer members’ questions about a possible strike/lock out. If you have questions, please attend.

As always, the AUFA bargaining team will work hard to represent the members’ best interests at the table.

Jason Foster

Chair, AUFA Bargaining Committee

Bargaining Update: AU refuses to present monetary offer because it fears an immediate strike

AUFA and AU met on September 14 and 15 to resume negotiations. AU continued to refuse to provide its full proposal or its monetary position or provide a timeline for when it will table them. AUFA once again articulated that AU’s refusal to provide a full package is undermining trust and impeding progress at the table.  

One of the reasons AU gave for not presenting their monetary proposal was that they believe that, when they do, it will lead AUFA to want to strike immediately. “As soon as we table it, you will immediately declare impasse and strike”, said Chantel Kassongo, AU’s external lawyer contracted to lead negotiations.  

It is useful to know that AU has an opening proposal ready. It is not surprising that AU is likely going to seek wage rollbacks. That AU expects its opening proposal to trigger a strike does not absolve AU of its obligation to provide a full proposal as part of its duty to bargain in good faith. 

During the exchange, Kassongo expressed displeasure with how AUFA is communicating with its members. AUFA’s bargaining team responded by saying AUFA’s communications with its members are no concern of AU’s. In response, Kassongo said “It is our concern. They are our employees before they are your members. If they don’t have a job, they aren’t members”. It is hard to know what to make of that statement. An employer interfering in a union’s communication with union members would be committing an unfair labour practice.  

As for substantive matters, AU presented a revised proposal regarding academic freedom. They abandoned their original proposal of entirely new language and instead presented amendments to existing language. The new proposal addresses some of AUFA’s concerns but other concerns remain, including removal of “freedom from institutional censorship” and inclusion of a statement placing academic freedom in the context of the university’s responsibility to its academic mission. The biggest concern is AU’s continued insistence on removing professional freedom from the agreement entirely.  

AU also proposed changes to the equity provisions. AU’s proposal eliminates the Employment Equity Committee entirely and includes a letter of understanding (commitments that do not make up a part of the permanent agreement) promising to deliver an “institutional equity, diversity, and inclusion framework and action plan” by April 1, 2023. AU’s proposal does not indicate what process will be used to develop this framework or if AUFA members will be included in the process. In the AUFA bargaining team’s evaluation, the proposal amounts to removing the one formal, albeit flawed, process we have for improving equity at AU and replacing it with a “trust us” approach to developing a plan. 

AUFA was able to present in detail our proposal around occupational health and safety (OHS), which aims to codify in the agreement workers’ safety rights and an effective joint health and safety committee. This conversation was productive. 

The parties also continued discussion on the grievance procedure, to which AU proposes significant changes. The parties have a better understanding of each other’s position on this issue. 

We have two more days of bargaining scheduled on October 25 and 29. AUFA’s bargaining team is not hopeful AU will present the remainder of their opening proposal or their monetary position on those days.  

Overall, the AUFA bargaining team is growing increasingly frustrated with AU’s unwillingness to present some of the most important parts of their offer after nearly six months of bargaining. AU’s unwillingness to present an opening offer is, frankly, bizarre and I’ve seen nothing like this behaviour in 25 years in the labour movement. 

The bargaining team invites AUFA members to express any concerns they have about AU’s behaviour at the bargaining table directly to the three members of AU’s bargaining team who are AU employees. 

Alain May, alainm@athabascau.ca 

Margaret Kierylo, mkierylo@athabascau.ca 

Jessica Butts Scott, jscott@athabascau.ca 

Perhaps hearing directly from AUFA members will change AU’s behaviour to the bargaining table. Please copy AUFA (aufahq@aufa.ca) on your correspondence. 

Jason Foster, Chair 

AUFA Bargaining Team 

AUFA membership pass motions on Israel and Laurentian University at AGM

The 2021 AUFA General Meeting was held this past Tuesday with 185 members attending, approximately 44% of the current AUFA membership. This incredible turnout is thanks to engaged, active, and interested members who are taking charge of their own futures at Athabasca University. President of CAUT, Brenda-Austin Smith spoke at the AGM extensively on how executive incompetence mixed with austerity led to insolvency at Laurentian University, and the censure at University of Toronto over academic freedom.

AUFA members also endorsed a new equity statement and an Indigenous Audit of the association, both of which will be discussed on the AUFA website soon.

Motion on Israel, Palestine, and the University of Toronto

The CAUT censure of University of Toronto has brought to bear substantive academic freedom issues relating to scholarship on Israeli settlement and apartheid. Academic research that is critical of the Israeli occupation faces undue censorship and restrictions compared to research on any other number of controversial topics, and it is vital that faculty associations not only stand forth to defend academic freedom, but that they speak to the issue at hand with a collective voice.

AUFA condemns in the strongest terms all attempts to censor and contain legitimately scholarly research on the teaching of human rights and international law violations against Palestinians and Palestine. We publicly support, and voted for CAUT censure of the University of Toronto over this issue.

The motion, which was passed with a 74% majority, reads as follows:

Be it resolved, because Palestinians have the right to exist, we condemn the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and continuing apartheid settler colonial practices of the State of Israel.

Because of the ongoing violations of human rights, forced evictions, deliberate destruction of buildings, and putting civilian life in peril perpetrated by the State of Israel towards Palestinians, we condemn the apartheid State of Israel and stand in support for an immediate ceasefire and end of the violence. 

We call on the Athabasca University Faculty Association and the university to condemn in the strongest terms the attempts to censor and contain legitimate scholarly research on and teaching of these human rights and international law violations against Palestinians and Palestine, and we call on AUFA to publicly support CAUT's censure of the University of Toronto.

Laurentian University

A second motion was passed with a 91% majority to demand the immediate resignation of the entire Laurentian University executive. AUFA once faced vague threats of insolvency in our past and the horrors visited about Laurentian University staff who have been denied access to their union and collective agreement rights must never be repeated. This is due to the incredible incompetence of the Laurentian University executive, and the mindless austerity of the Ontario Minister of Advanced Education Ross Romano.

The AUFA President will send a public letter demanding the resignation of the Laurentian University executive in the near future per the motion.

Motion text reads as follows:

That AUFA demand that all members of the Laurentian Executive resign effective immediately over the issues of financial mismanagement and invocation of Companies Creditors Arrangement Act Insolvency. 

AUFA Executive

The new AUFA Executive will see David Powell and Gail Leicht return as President and Treasurer for second terms. Stepping up as Vice-President will be Serena Henderson, and Dawn Mercer Riseli will be the new Secretary. The elected roster of constituency representatives is Lisa Boone, Travis Burwash, Bangaly Kaba, Joanna Nemeth, Darka Pavlovic, Rhiannon Rutherford, Ingo Schmidt, Myra Tait, and Jason Foster.

Marti Cleveland-Innes will serve as the new Board of Governors Representative, replacing Derek Briton who has fulfilled his term limit as BoG rep. Thank you for your service and excellent reports, Derek. In addition a large slate of elected committees has been filled. All new terms begin on July 1st.

Thank you to the AUFA members for your support, the incredible turnout, and ongoing engagement and participation. This is how we win.

David Powell

President, Athabasca University Faculty Association

Bargaining Update

Your bargaining team met with the employer for a day of bargaining on May 10. AUFA’s bargaining team is comprised of Jason Foster, Jen Rempel, Bangaly Kaba, Alexa DeGagne and Richard Roach. AUFA’s opening proposal can be found here. AU’s bargaining team is Alain May, Margaret Kierylo, Jessica Butts Scott, Abey Arnaout and their lead spokesperson is external lawyer Chantel Kassongo. AU’s opening proposal can be found here.

We continued to impress upon AU’s bargaining team the importance of presenting their monetary proposals. Not having the employer’s full proposal makes it difficult to make progress in bargaining because AUFA does not know the full extent of what AU is asking for and many non-monetary clauses can have financial implications. AU’s bargaining team continued to refuse to present their monetary proposal and have provided no timeline for when they will.

The two sides spent time discussing two articles but reached no agreement on either. The first part of the day focused on the academic tenure and promotion process. The employer provided a redacted version of an internal auditor’s report evaluating the current process and its perceived shortcomings. AU initially proposed providing the full, unredacted report but wanted AUFA’s team to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to view it. AUFA’s team declined this request because we felt it would limit our ability to be transparent with our members about bargaining discussions.

Many of the report’s recommendations are issues entirely within the control of administration and can be corrected without contractual changes. For example, the report identifies that letters sent from some committees to the VPA recommending promotion are insufficiently detailed. The solution to this is for the VPA to send the letters back for revision (as we might do if a student submitted an incomplete assignment). Notably, the recommendations did not address the significant delays in HR processing promotion applications.

The report appeared to suggest that tenure and promotion processes should be merged and that a permanent central committee should be established to conduct tenure and promotion reviews. The only rationale provided was that it would harmonize AU with other Alberta universities.

Based on the report, the employer asked to discuss a broad restructuring of the tenure and promotion process. AU did not present any specific proposals. In our response, we emphasized that discussions of tenure and promotion should take place in a collegial, institution-wide consultation process. Once broad support for changes is found, a proposal could be brought to the bargaining table to make any necessary amendments to the collective agreement. The discussion ended when we requested they present a specific proposal articulating their preferences. They provided no indication of when or if they will do that.

The latter part of the day was spent discussing each party’s proposals regarding academic and professional freedom. We analyzed both parties proposals in a recent blog post. We made the case that professionals often engage in activity that is equivalent to that of academics and thus deserving of equal protection. Granting such protections entails no cost to AU and would make AU a more attractive place to work. Their team argued that academic freedom is a restricted right for those who have earned it. According to Margaret Kierylo, “academic freedom is very sacred and something that belongs to academics”. She suggested academic freedom is earned by acquiring a PhD. AUFA responded by pointing out that some academics do not have PhDs yet have academic freedom while many professionals have PhDs but no academic freedom. Further, academic freedom flows from the collective agreement, not from what degrees one has. AU’s team also expressed concern that accepting AUFA’s proposal to extend academic freedom would “undermine our standing as an institution” (according to Dr. Kierylo). AUFA respectfully disagreed with that notion.

AU’s team also acknowledged their proposal regarding academic freedom was “cut and pasted” from the definition created by Universities Canada, an organization representing university presidents. Discussion around AU’s proposed definition of academic freedom was unproductive because AU appeared inadequately prepared to answer questions about the meaning of its terms.

We meet again in late May. We hope the employer will present their monetary proposal at that time. We will continue to represent your interests as best we can.

Jason Foster, Chair

AUFA Bargaining Team