deans

Bargaining Update: Mediator Issues Report

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

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

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

Wages and Allowances 

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

  • July 1, 2020: 0% 

  • July 1, 2021: 0% 

  • July 1, 2022: 0%  

  • April 1, 2023: 1.25% 

  • December 1, 2023: 1.5% 

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

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

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

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

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

Research and Study Leave (RSL) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Provisions 

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

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

Some recommendations address AUFA concerns in bargaining, including: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote Results and Next Steps 

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

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

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

On behalf of the bargaining committee, 

Jason Foster 

Bargaining Update: AUFA Presents Counter-Proposals

AU and AUFA met for a part day of bargaining on March 2, as AU representatives were unable to make themselves available for much of the afternoon. AUFA used the limited time to present its own package of counter-proposals in an effort to move toward a fair deal. This update provides highlights of AUFA’s proposals. An analysis of where things stand as we move into formal mediation next week will come in the following days.

AUFA continues to reject the list of concessions demanded by AU, including reductions to professionals’ rights, cuts to research and study leave, the removal of Deans from the bargaining unit, and negative changes to grievance and appeals processes. Our new package reflects this stand.

AUFA made a counter-offer on the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). AU’s proposal on Monday offered the settlement given to AUPE (2.75% to 3.25% provided late in the contract).

AUFA’s new COLA offer is:

  • July 1, 2020: 0%

  • July 1, 2021: 0%

  • July 1, 2022: An average of 2.5% increase to base salary awarded as flat dollar amount per-member, pro-rated for FTE.

  • July 1, 2023: An average of 2.5% increase to base salary awarded as flat dollar amount per-member, pro-rated for FTE.

AUFA’s COLA proposal is designed to increase equity among all AUFA members. If COLA is distributed as a percentage, as it has been for years, then members higher up on the wage scale receive a larger wage increase in real dollar terms than do those lower on the wage scale. For example, a 2.5% COLA for someone earning $75,000 equals $1,875. For someone earning $150,000, that same percentage increase equals $3,750. In contrast, AUFA’s proposal ensures that each AUFA member receives a COLA of approximately $2,600 in each of the last two years, based on AUFA members’ current average salary. AUFA’s proposal is meant to correct the inequities inherent in AU’s tendency in recent years to lowball new hires on starting salary.

AUFA’s latest proposals maintain our existing requests expanding appeals rights to disputes over workload and performance, securing fair work-from-home allowances and improvements to equity language, creating four floating vacation days, and ensuring protections against the de-designation of AUFA members. We also renewed our call for a joint pay equity review process.

Finally, AUFA amended its proposals for stronger occupational health and safety language and new contracting out language. Both remain on the table for discussion.

AUFA’s package did not include a counter-offer to the employer’s proposal on tenure and promotion processes (Article 3). AUFA is still deliberating on its response to that item.

AU has not yet responded to the package. The parties enter formal mediation on March 8.

On behalf of the bargaining committee,

Jason Foster

Chair

AU de-designates deans; delays implementation

Screen Shot 2021-06-18 at 10.36.56 AM.png

AU’s Board of Governors (BoG) has been considering an application by the AU executive to de-designate the deans from the AUFA bargaining unit. The business case developed by the Provost to support this de-designation was deeply defective. AUFA provided a response to the executive’s application, suggesting that AU should bargain this issue and advanced proposals about designation in collective bargaining.

The BoG’s Human Resource and Compensation Committee (HRCC) voted on May 21, 2021 to de-designate the deans. AUFA and the deans were informed of this this week, nearly a month later.

The BoG has decided to delay the implementation of this change until the resolution of a complaint filed by AUFA to the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB). The nub of this complaint is that decanal de-designation constitutes a change of terms and conditions of employment during collective bargaining (which is a prohibited practice).

The Labour Board is holding a mediation meeting about this complaint on July 7. If the matter is not resolved via mediation, then the complaint will proceed to hearing. AUFA is seeking a hearing as soon as possible (because violating the freeze period affects our ability to bargain). AU is suggesting the earliest they could be ready for a hearing is March of 2022.

AUFA has advised all candidates in the current decanal searches of AU’s intent to de-designate and the implications of de-designation.

In addition to the current complaint, AUFA has the option of appealing AU’s de-designation to the ALRB. While the basis of the appeal is still being sorted, the substance of the Provost’s business case are likely to be at issue.

AU has asserted the deans don’t do this combination of work and thus don’t meet the (highly contestable) definition of academic that AU just established. As it turns out:

  • Teaching: Four of the five deans perform direct teaching. The fifth dean (who does not teach) was parachuted in from administrative leave following the termination of the dean of FHD. Indeed, the deans who are supervising graduate students would be forced to give that up if they are de-designated, because the Faculty of Graduate Studies regulations require supervisors to be full-time and continuing faculty members.

  • Service: All of the deans serve on university governance committees.

  • Research: All of the deans are engaged in scholarly research.

AU has also argued that deans should be excluded because they perform managerial functions, including making decisions with respect to hiring, promotion, discipline, and discharge, and that they have an important role in labour relations within AU. This assertion founders in several ways:

  • Section 58.1(4) of the Labour Relations Code explicitly allows for academics who perform managerial functions to be considered employees and thus eligible for membership in faculty association.

  • Article 3.5 of the collective agreement outlines how hiring occurs. A search committee makes a recommendation to the VPA and the VPA requests the President make an offer. Deans are not decision makers in the hiring process.

  • Article 3.6 outlines how promotion works. A promotion review committee makes a recommendation to the VPA and the VPA makes a recommendation that the President promote or not promote. Deans are not decision makers in the promotion process.

  • Article 7 outlines how discipline and termination works. A dean can investigate a concern (although in practice, HR does the investigation) and then makes a recommendation to the VPA who, then decides if discipline is warranted and what the discipline (which can include termination) shall be. Deans are not decision makers in the discipline and termination process.

  • Deans have effectively no role in labour relations as it affects AUFA members. Deans may have a role in labour relations regarding CUPE tutors or AUPE support staff. This is neither relevant to nor precludes their membership in AUFA.

AU has also asserted that the goals of deans in bargaining will likely conflict with those of other AUFA members. AU has not substantiated this assertion. To date, AUFA has been unable to find any instances of meaningful conflicts of interest occurring.

Dave Powell, President

AUFA responds to decanal de-designation proposal

Screen Shot 2021-03-09 at 3.08.36 PM.png

In late February, AU advised AUFA that it wished to remove the five deans from the AUFA bargaining unit as per AU’s new de-designation policy. Deans (or people performing decanal duties) have been in the bargaining unit since the 80s.

After consulting with the deans and legal council, AUFA declined to respond to AU’s business case. Instead, AUFA indicated that (1) AU can bargain this issue if it wishes and (2) AUFA will be pursuing complaints at the Labour Relations Board, as it is illegal for an employer to attempt changes to a bargaining unit during the freeze period of open bargaining. Designation is not an exception.

Our response below is what was sent to Human Resources:

The following is AUFA's response to the Deans Designation Business Case:

Deans have been included as part of AUFA from their inception in 1985-95, and their re-introduction in 2011-present; as were their analogues, directors, between 1995-2011. They are a part of our collective bargaining agreement and are academic staff members, it is inappropriate to ask us to consult on a de-designation case for the deans. There is no further need to consult.

If the employer wishes to discuss removal of the deans from the bargaining unit, it must be done in the proper context of bargaining. Should the employer continue with their business case and move to de-designate the deans, it would amount to a violation of the Labour Relations Code: breach of the Freeze Period of collective bargaining, interference in the representation of union members, and/or bargaining in bad faith.

That said, it is useful to consider the business case AU has advanced and the rest of this blog does that.

AU’s Arguments Lack Evidence

AU justifies its move to exclude the deans on two primary grounds. Even a cursory investigation reveals these grounds are specious, even when judged against their own policy that was forced through against the will of all three campus unions.

AU’s new de-designation policy defines academics as individuals whose jobs involved teaching, research, and service work. AU asserts the deans don’t do this combination of work and thus don’t meet the (highly contestable) definition of academic that AU just established. As it turns out:

  • Teaching: Four of the five deans perform direct teaching. The fifth dean (who does not teach) was parachuted in from administrative leave following the termination of the dean of FHD. Indeed, the deans who are supervising graduate students would be forced to give that up if they are de-designated, because the Faculty of Graduate Studies regulations require supervisors to be full-time and continuing faculty members.

  • Service: All of the deans serve on university governance committees.

  • Research: All of the deans are engaged in scholarly research.

AU also argues deans should be excluded because they perform managerial functions, including making decisions with respect to hiring, promotion, discipline, and discharge, and that they have an important role in labour relations within AU. This assertion founders in several ways:

  • Section 58.1(4) of the Labour Relations Code explicitly allows for academics who perform managerial functions to be considered employees and thus eligible for membership in faculty association.

  • Article 3.5 of the collective agreement outlines how hiring occurs. A search committee makes a recommendation to the VPA and the VPA requests the President make an offer. Deans are not decision makers in the hiring process.

  • Article 3.6 outlines how promotion works. A promotion review committee makes a recommendation to the VPA and the VPA makes a recommendation that the President promote or not promote. Deans are not decision makers in the promotion process.

  • Article 7 outlines how discipline and termination works. A dean can investigate a concern (although in practice, HR does the investigation) and then makes a recommendation to the VPA who, then decides if discipline is warranted and what the discipline (which can include termination) shall be. Deans are not decision makers in the discipline and termination process.

  • Deans have effectively no role in labour relations as it affects AUFA members. Deans may have a role in labour relations regarding CUPE tutors or AUPE support staff. This is neither relevant to nor precludes their membership in AUFA.

AU also asserts that the goals of deans in bargaining will likely conflict with those of other AUFA members. AU does not substantiate this assertion. To date, AUFA has been unable to find any instances of meaningful conflicts of interest occurring.

Analysis & Next Steps

Overall, AU’s business case for the de-designation of deans lacks any meaningful rationale. It is concerning that this business case contains profound factual inaccuracies. It is unclear whether the Provost has a poor grasp of what the deans actually do, or whether this lack of evidence reveals the emptiness of the consultation process itself.

Should AUFA’s labour board complaint not forestall the process, the next steps under the policy is for the university executive to make a recommendation to the Board’s Human Resources and Compensation Committee (the HRCC). The HRCC appears to have the authority to decide the matter.

Should the HRCC decide to de-designate the deans, AUFA will file an appeal of the de-designation. AUFA will also make candidates for the three decanal vacancies aware of the implications of de-designation on their employment security.

Bob Barnetson

Membership Engagement Committee