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 

Staff report ergo problems and frustrations

In early March, AUFA asked for feedback from AU staff about ergonomic issues. This request followed an increase in queries and complaints about ergonomic and accommodations over the past several months. Approximate 120 staff members provided feedback (the survey was open to AUPE and CUPE members as well) and this blog post summarizes the feedback. 

Satisfaction with current office set-up 

We asked respondents to rate their current home office set up using a 5-star rating system. The following chart suggests that most respondents consider their current set up as more or less adequate.  

Nevertheless, the comments indicated that many staff members do not have ideal working conditions and are simply making do given the circumstances. Many respondents indicated their desks, chairs, and computer equipment is inadequate for their needs. Some indicated that their living space is inadequate for a home office set-up. 

Concerningly, many respondents indicated they are experiencing discomfort because (1) they do not have adequate office set-ups and (2) their computer work has become more intensive. This has caused or is leading to workplace injuries. Here is a sample of the comments received: 

Back pain, arm pain, eye strain - need to have better equipment but I don't know if I'll need to move back after the pandemic so I'm reluctant to spend a lot of money getting better equipment (e.g. new ergonomic desk & chair) when I won't be able to bring those to a new place if required to move 

Working on a lap top means that either my hands are too high or my neck is straining down. I'm suffering from several resulting problems. I've requested an ergonomic assessment from AU, but haven't heard back. 

I have neck pain from work days in front of screen. There have been many longer days and more on-screen meetings in the pandemic, and I am also being asked to do a lot of service work [personal details redacted]. 

No sit and stand desk (like I had at the University), home computer chair not suited for long hours. I have been experiencing terrible lower back pain the past 3 weeks. I need to investigate proper ergonomic seating, but don't know where to begin and what sort of financial support is available. A medical note is required to acquire any ergonomic equipment (eg. sit/stand desk) 

Satisfaction with ergonomic support by AU 

We also asked for input regarding staff members’ experiences with the current support provided by AU. Here, 50% of respondents provided a one- or two-star rating, suggesting that many have not had satisfactory experiences.  

The comments reveal some common concerns about employees’ experiences seeking support from the university:  

• Unresponsive: Some respondents flagged that HR does not promptly or effectively respond to ergo requests.  

• Intrusive and slow: Some respondents indicated that the process is overly bureaucratic, cumbersome, very slow, and potentially intrusive.   

• Inconsistent or lacking information: There appears to be confusion about the requirement for medical notes to seek ergonomic support or accommodations, or perhaps inconsistencies in the application of this requirement. Some respondents indicated they are not aware of current information or processes.  

• Unqualified and uncomfortable: Some respondents questioned the qualifications of AU’s ergo assessor. Others expressed distrust in the assessor or HR more generally.  

• Inadequate funding: The $1000 payment to new home office workers is widely viewed as inadequate to acquire proper equipment for workers newly moved home. Long-term teleworkers (who may have received $2000 upon hire) have not received any funding to replace worn out equipment or address new needs (e.g., due to aging or greater intensity of use). 

While some comments and ratings do indicate satisfaction with AU’s current processes, negative ratings and concerned comments were far more numerous. This may point to inconsistencies in application or, more seriously, some systemic inequities. Here is a sampling of the comments that were received: 

I tried to be in touch with ergonomic support several times. They often did not reply to my emails. I am in the process of trying to get a doctor's note so I can get better accommodations. I have mostly been getting responses through AUFA, as ergonomic support has not been answering my emails. 

I haven't engaged with AU on some ergonomic issues I've had since before the pandemic. The requirement for a doctor's note to get a standing desk is kind of silly though. you'd think that for people who sit at their desk all day long it would just be standard. 

Need ergo assessment and new desk; AU gave me $2k 15 years ago to set up an office and nothing since. The stuff I bought has all fallen apart and my needs have changed as I've aged. I am choosing not to engage with AU because everything about HR is untrustworthy and I doubt they'll do anything even if I ask. 

The funding provided by AU allowed me to upgrade my phone and internet package and purchase a wi-fi range booster so that I could do my job from home. But after taxes, it was not nearly enough upgrade my desk (with existing back issues-I had a sit stand - which are very expensive). 

I filed a ergonomic request before or around Dec 2020, nothing happened, no email /response 

I have never received any funding for work space. I have paid out of pocket for all my office set up and when ever I have asked for funding, I have typically gotten run around. So, I stopped. 

My home is not set up to accommodate an actual office, so have been working at a dining table. I haven't reached out for support because I don't think AU is willing to build an addition onto my home to accommodate an office. If I would have known we were to have home offices I would have purchased a home with the extra room to set up an office. The only solution is for me to fix the problem by moving to a larger home, building an addition on to my home, or asking one of my children to move out so I can convert their bedroom to an office. With my current setup (and many other staff, as well), ergonomics is not going to solve a bigger problem. If I ever have an appropriate work/office space for a desk and computer, I will then worry about appropriate ergonomics. 

This issue was raised early in the pandemic by frontline supervisors from what my boss told me, and raised at various meetings but didn't seem to go anywhere with AU until the holidays. $1000 isn't enough and doesn't go far enough (after taxes) and with the availability of some items scarce and prices seemingly going up as everyone is still trying to equip home offices. Why do profs received double this amount when my home office needs are the same, if not greater due to the processing work I do? Now I'm expected to buy a cell phone case and screen protector for my AU phone out of this money as well (when this stuff should have been issued with the phones).... 

A one-time payment of 1K helps, but my variable height desk was close to that, my chair was more than that, and other accommodations also added to the office cost. In my opinion, too much of the ergonomic financial burden falls on the employee. Anyone working at AU over an extended period of time is faced with the decision of upgrading their workspace at their own expense or with settling for a workplace that is progressively less safe. Given that the employer has substantial savings over maintaining offices for staff annually, I think a better office infrastructure stipend should be considered. 

These responses suggest there are significant flaws or gaps in AU’s current processes for providing ergonomic support to employees. Concerns or negative perceptions about the process negatively affects workers’ willingness to engage in it, which could lead to increases in injuries as issues are left unresolved.    

Satisfaction with medical accommodations 

Finally, we asked about experiences seeking medical accommodations. The number of responses on this question was far lower, but a one-star rating was the most common at nearly 39% percent.  

The comments indicate that similar issues are present with seeking medical accommodations as noted above in relation to broader ergonomic supports. Here are a sample of the comments: 

AU's support has been poor. My medical note from my doctor stating my need for a sit-stand desk was dismissed by HR. 

It was several months from first submission of my ergonomic request until my assessments were conducted. First assessment was by an inexperienced assessor, 2nd assessment by an experienced assessor. Once dr. form and medical accommodation was established, next interaction took some time for AU HR Ergonomics lead to contact me (no responses to emails sent to ergonomics email queue). Once AU HR Ergonomics responded, AU Ergonomics lead required recompletion of a new ergonomic form to self-assess me in my home. However, the past ergonomic assessments already indicated what was required - felt like I was going backwards and having to repeat completing forms and describing my requirements/medical accommodation. Lastly, when the meeting was held by AU Ergonomics lead to discuss next steps, it seemed that prior ergonomic assessments and recommendations made were not reviewed - again, felt like I was going backwards to restate what had already been decided by AU's ergonomic assessor some time ago.  

I was medically supposed to have a stand up desk and had it at the office, but now the process has stalled. I would really like it here but I am unsure what is happening. Secondly, it seems unfair when some already have the perfect set up at home and I am supposed to use that money for a desk that will be nearly all of that $1000 and they don't. Maybe it's just me. 

pre-COVID; I requested ergonomic assessment due to concerns on a repetitive strain injury and the delays were ridiculous. I was informed that if I needed a certain chair, I would be waiting months to a year to get that chair. Because injuries of this nature do not resolve on their own, nor will they wait for the proper ergonomic equipment to be available, I simply purchased the appropriate equipment needed to reduce further injury. 

When I needed to obtain ergonomic support and contacted AU about it, I was given a very long form to fill in and I was instructed to provide 80 hours of videos showing me while working in my current set up! The whole process seemed to have been designed to incriminate the professor (e.g. bad posture) rather than providing ergonomic support. Besides, I had more important things to do than learning how to become a movie director and produce that movie as I had to catch up with [personal details redacted]. Finally, the process was presented to me as it was going to take months to a year before the problem is addressed. My neck and lower back could not wait that long. I therefore used my savings and purchased an ergonomic chair myself to deal with the emergency, at least partly as I still do not have a proper desk. 

Recommendations 

AUFA’s executive has provided this information to Human Resources. AUFA has made some general recommendations to HR based upon these results: 

• AU should improve the processes for supporting employees in setting up and maintaining ergonomic work stations in their home offices. These processes should be proactive and supportive, not potentially punitive or stressful.  

• AU should streamline the ways in which employees can purchase or acquire ergonomic equipment for their home offices. The funding framework should be clear and designed to address inequities.  

• AU should ensure that ergonomics and wellness supports are sufficiently resourced and carried out by qualified, responsive professionals.  

AUFA is hopeful that AU will listen to and act upon these concerns about the current processes and supports, and move toward providing exemplary, rather than merely adequate, support for staff in home offices.  

Rhiannon Rutherford and Bob Barnetson 

AUFA OHS Representatives 

Main Campus Joint Health and Safety Committee 

Ongoing ergonomic issues – looking for feedback

As we approach one year of almost all AU staff working from home, we have been hearing from many members about the cumulative effects of ongoing ergonomic issues. In December, AU provided one-time payments to staff members who moved to working from home due to COVID to help purchase new equipment.

While we applaud this gesture, it is becoming apparent that this was not enough to adequately meet many members’ ergonomic needs. In addition to concerns about the cost of equipment, we have received several complaints that suggest AU may not have adequately met their legal requirements to accommodate employees’ medical or workplace needs.

We also became aware that earlier this year that AU issued a request for proposals for a contractor to run the ergonomic program at AU. It is unclear the extent to which this contracted out work may replace, continue, or build on the ergonomic supports currently in place or those in place prior to COVID-related closures.

However, we recognize that this may be a broader issue affecting many staff who have not come forward yet. We are therefore asking AU employees to complete a short, anonymous survey to share perspectives and provide input on their experiences with the support for ergonomics they have received from AU.

Main Campus Inspection Complete

The Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee inspected the Main and ARC buildings last Thursday. Facilities has made significant progress over the past 12 months, both in renovating the building and in remedying past OHS issues.

No significant OHS problems were discovered during the inspection. Additional carbon monoxide monitoring of the ARC building was undertaken in January after anomalous reading in December. Additional monitoring did not turn up any results of concern. The December readings were likely the result of sensor error.

The Joint Committee meets again this month. Topic to be addressed include revisions to current OHS training and outgoing telephone messaging. Your main campus HIS representatives are Rhiannon Rutherford and Bob Barnetson.

Rhiannon Rutherford and Bob Barnetson

AUFA Main Campus OHS committee members

AUFA Grieves Sick Leave Denial

AUFA is currently pursuing a grievance on behalf of a member whose sick leave has been unreasonably denied.

AUFA does not normally discuss the content of individual grievances. With the permission of the member involved, AUFA is making an exception because of the implications of this grievance for all members.

Background

In the summer of 2018, a member’s partner was diagnosed with a second instance of cancer. As a result of this diagnosis, the member developed a serious, stress-related illness. The member’s doctor put the member on sick leave during the autumn of 2018.

In late 2018, the member began to recover from the illness and sought a graduated return-to-work (RTW). When the RTW was requested, AU’s Employee Health Coordinator Darren Schmidtke requested:

...a medical note from [the member’s] doctor indicating any limitations/restrictions or [the member’s] return to work, what [the member’s] return to work would look like (days of the week/hours of the day) and the duration of such.

The member’s doctor provided a note indicating the member could return to work 2 days per week with flexible hours from January 8 to February 8. There were no restrictions on the member’s duties. The member returned to work on January 8.

The member was then notified that HR wanted to speak to the member about the doctor’s note. Sensing something was amiss, the member sought AUFA representation.

First Doctor’s Note Rejected

Article 16.5.4 requires members provide “satisfactory proof” of sickness to qualify for sick leave benefits. In a late January meeting (as the RTW was wrapping up), HR indicated it did not find the doctor’s note adequate (despite the note including the information requested in December).

HR also suggested that the member was not sick, but rather was using sick leave to provide compassionate care to the member’s partner. While the member did provide care for the member’s partner, the member’s medical leave was related to the member’s own illness.

 Schmidtke subsequently asserted:

The medical note in question indicates that [the member] is able to perform all aspects of work functions. It does not provide any reasoning for why days must be flexible, any indication of ongoing medical treatment or support or expected duration of this medical concern or any reasoning why the employee is unable to work the remaining 3 days of the week. It also does not indicate whether the employee is able to work from [the member’s] office or should be working from home.

The note did, in fact, indicate a duration (to February 8). Schmidtke also overlooked that the note did not identify any restrictions on the location of work (the member teleworked during this time, in consultation with the member’s supervisor).

 The other issues (reasoning and treatment) were not part of Schmidtke’s original request and, in AUFA’s opinion, are not information the employer requires to determine if the member is sick or not (and thus entitled to benefits and accommodation). Rather, the note itself comprises satisfactory proof of sickness. In the end, the member agreed to get a second, more detailed note from the member’s doctor in the hoping of avoiding a confrontation that would aggravate the member’s illness.

AU Interferes with AUFA Representation

 AU’s Abilities Management Policy allows AUFA members to request AUFA representation during a RTW accommodation. Some AUFA members seek representation because: (1) they are unaware of their rights; and, (2) they are not able to effectively advocate for themselves (due to the effects of their illness).

After the member agreed to get a second note, AU sent the member the form it wanted filled out. AU cut AUFA out of this communication. When confronted with this denial of representation, Schmidtke indicated:

The university will not share or discuss an employee’s sensitive medical information with anyone except the employee, or with members of the Human Resources team (as required).

The difficulty with Schmidtke’s statement is that the email contained a blank form (i.e., there was no medical information being shared).

Second Note Rejected; Vacation Time Goes Missing

The member provided a second note from the member’s doctor that contained a high-level overview of the symptoms of the member’s medical condition that limited the member’s ability to work full-time from January 8 to February 8.

Coincidentally, the member also queried the member’s available vacation time for 2018/19. The member found that 14 days of vacation leave were missing. Examining the time sheets, the member found that Schmidtke had been docking vacation leave instead of sick days during the member’s return to work. This vacation-leave docking was done without any notice to the member.

 (AU is permitted to use VT to cover periods of time when a member has exhausted sick leave benefits under Article 16.4.6. In this case, the member had not exhausted sick leave benefits. Rather, sick leave was being denied because AU asserted that two doctor’s notes were (somehow) not satisfactory proof of sickness).

AU then rejected the member’s second doctor’s note. It also refused to return the vacation leave, with Schmidtke asserting:

At this time, the vacation days will not be returned to you, as you accepted the remuneration and have access to a pay stub which would have shown the details as to how you were paid over this time period.

However, if your preference is that you want to have your vacation days reissued, please contact your HR Advisor, Seona Noseworthy, and arrangements can be made for you to reimburse AU for the Vacation days paid out to you, and we will have those days added back to your vacation bank.

Schmidtke’s assertion that failing to instantly dispute time sheets (which Schmidtke altered and submitted without notice to the member) somehow negates the grievance is incorrect. There is no requirement for AUFA members to instantly dispute errors on their time sheets. Failing to do so does not mean a member has accepted a violation of the contract.

The Grievance

AUFA grieved the theft of the 14 days of vacation time as well as the denial of the member’s representational rights. AUFA’s settlement offer was the return of the 14 days plus an agreement to allow AUFA representation of members as per AU’s own policy.

The reasons for advancing this grievance are:

1. The member has lost 14 days of vacation pay (>$5000).

2. AU is unreasonably interpreting “satisfactory proof” of sickness.

3. The effect of the vacation loss is discrimination on the basis of disability.

4. AU is interfering in AUFA’s representation of sick members.

Unusually, AU responded to both the informal and formal steps of the grievance in 2 days each. AU normally takes the full 15 and 10 working days for these steps respectively. The grievance (filed with HR Director Charlene Polege) was denied at both steps. A final effort to the settle the grievance with President Fassina (who is the executive officer in charge of HR) was also unsuccessful.

AUFA is currently advancing this grievance to arbitration. At arbitration, AUFA will also be also seeking damages for the violations of the member’s human rights and representational rights.

The Lessons

The grievance suggests several conclusions of relevance to all AUFA members:

1. You cannot trust HR. The job of HR is to advance the employer’s interests (which is usually saving money). HR is not there to support you or administer the collective agreement in an even-handed manner (although, sometimes, that can happen).

2. You need representation in accommodations. AU has recently developed a pattern of poorly handling accommodation and return-to-work issues. You are entitled to (and should seek) representation during any accommodation discussions, if only so you have a witness. You should also record all discussions in writing.

3. You should check your time sheets. This grievance is not the only instance of AU altering time sheets with no notice to AUFA members. If you have been on a sick leave recently, you should check your time sheets to ensure their accuracy. If you find a discrepancy, contact the AUFA office by phone (780 675-6282) or email (aufahq@athabascau.ca)..

4. You should (if possible) decline graduated RTWs. The purpose of gradually returning to work is to give you time to finish healing while adjusting to work again. AU’s tendency to hassle members on RTW suggests that, if your doctor gives you the option of a graduated RTW or staying off sick until you can return to work full time, you should seriously consider staying off sick to avoid making yourself a target. You may wish to print off this blog post and show it to your doctor if the topic comes up.

5. If your spidey-sense tingles, contact your union. AU is much more aggressively managing the employment relationship (e.g., we’ve had 14 discipline cases in the same time period in which we normally have only 1). You are entitled to consult your union about employment issues. Such consultations are confidential and can be made by phone (780 675-6282) or email (aufahq@athabascau.ca).

6. AU does not walk the talk on its I-Care values. While university administrators talk about integrity and respect, they do not live up to these values. Denying an obviously sick employee with two doctor’s notes (and whose partner also has cancer) access to sick leave and then stealing the member’s vacation leave without notice is despicable behaviour. Senior administrators did not correct this behaviour when given the chance. How is that acting with respect and integrity?

7. Company doctors are bad news. During collective bargaining, AU proposed new language allowing it to send members to see company-appointed doctors at HR’s discretion. Company doctors exist to save employers money by denying worker sick leave entitlements. This grievance demonstrates why AUFA should never agree to company doctor language.

 Bob Barnetson, Member

 AUFA Grievance Committee