AUFA statement on Alberta's proposed anti-trans legislation

The Athabasca University Faculty Association condemns the recent policy proposals by the Alberta government which is a direct attack on the rights of Two-Spirit, transgender, non-binary, and gender non-confirming (2STNBGC) youths. As a union, our duty is a commitment to equity for all members, which includes fairness and justice in the way they are treated. As a faculty association, we are dedicated to the intellectual pursuit and the protection of academic freedom.

The recent policy proposals use the guise of parental rights to rob youths of their own right to live their lives peacefully and safely. It seeks to out people without their permission, deny proven medical treatments like puberty blockers, and exclude youths from engaging in healthy community activities like sports and athletics. It is also anti-intellectual, erasing decades of academic work to instead embrace a current moral panic, and hide this attempted social erasure behind a false veneer of concern. The creation and enforcement of these laws has encouraged violence against 2STNBGC youths, most recently in the death of Nex Benedict, who died at the hands of classmates after similar laws were proposed in Oklahoma.   

The Alberta government is our employer, and it is attacking our children.

AUFA calls upon all interested members to sign the Trans Action Alberta petition, write their political leaders to express their condemnation of these policies, and to attend rallies in their communities. In addition, please watch our provincial organization CAFA, for their forthcoming statement.

Additional links:

Trans Rights Yeg for attending rallies in Edmonton.

Queer Citizens United for attending rallies in Calgary.

Alberta Federation Labour statement.

Write your Members of the Legislative Assembly:

Danielle Smith, Premier of Alberta

Demetrios Nicolaides, Minister of Education

Glenn Van Dijken, Member of the Legislative Assembly for Athabasca-Westlock-Barrhead

Know your contract: Discipline

Over the past twelve months, there have been 12 disciplinary investigations of AUFA members under Article 7 of the collective agreement. In past years, there were between 1 and 3 such investigations. This seeming increase is largely the result of Human Resources moving from informal processes to more formal ones. Although formal investigations are nerve-wracking, they ensure that investigations follow the rules in our Collective Agreement. 

The above chart breaks down status of discipline cases that were active in the past year. Of the twelve cases over this past year, three have resulted in discipline thus far.

Investigation: Article 7.3

When the employer wishes to investigate a potential problem with an AUFA member, they must follow the rules set out in Article 7 to conduct the investigation. It is up to HR to determine what is worthy of investigation or not. If HR wishes to commence an investigation they must:

• Inform the AUFA Executive Director.

• Inform the member, and ensure they understand their right to union representation.

To conduct the investigation, HR will use either an HR officer, or hire an external contractor. An initial meeting is held to discuss the allegations with the member with a union representative present. The investigator will then normally conduct interviews with affected parties within the workplace and gather evidence to determine what happened. 

During the investigative process, Human Resources may elect to place a member on paid leave. This typically occurs only with with more serious allegations. It is important to understand that members subject to this process have not been found guilty of anything, and they are not being “disciplined” (even if the investigation may feel that way). Rather, the employer is investigating a potential problem, and they have to conduct the investigation to find out if the problem is real.  

Discipline: Article 7.5

At the conclusion of an investigation, Human Resources will receive a report from the investigator, and decide whether to proceed or not with imposing discipline. If Human Resources determines that corrective discipline is necessary, Article 7.5 allows the employer to do one of the following:

• A written warning on the employee’s file.

• Denial of certain rights.

• Suspension with pay.

• Suspension without pay.

• Termination with cause.

The employer normally imposes progressive discipline, where initial discipline is a milder form and, if the misbehaviour persists, corrective actions become increasingly severe. If there is a very serious infraction, however, the employer may issue suspension or termination on a first offence.

If the employer decides discipline is not warranted, the investigation concludes without discipline.

Appeal: Article 7.7

Members have a right to request the withdrawal of discipline from the University President. If the President declines (which they have always done), the member can then request an appeal.

AUFA has strong appeal language which sends disciplinary decisions to a panel of three people. AUFA choses one, AU choses the other, and the third is elected by the two panel members. The panel does not have to be internal, allowing either side to choose legal counsel for an appeal. Per our contract, the employer must pay for the panel, which may be extremely expensive for the employer.  

Members who were placed on leave during an investigation may, at the employer’s discretion, remain that way until an appeal is heard. The penalties of termination and suspension without pay are held in abeyance until the appeal is complete and a decision rendered. Appeal results that follow process properly are binding.

Analysis

Investigations have been informally referred to as “disciplines” in the past, which can create unnecessary worry for affected members. Discipline only takes place after an investigation, if the employer decides to impose one of the penalties set out in Article 7.5. Most investigations do not result in discipline. It is important to understand that if you are under investigation, you are not being punished by the employer.

AUFA has received several questions from members concerned that disciplinary cases may be disproportionately affecting racialized members. Although we do not have equity data on our membership to compare the cases to the total population, we’ve observed the following:

• 75% of Article 7 cases affected white members. This is inclusive of both investigations and disciplines.

• The remaining 25% were for members who were Black, Indigenous, or people of colour.

• Of the three cases that resulted in discipline (one was withdrawn), two of the three affected members are white.  

More reports to the membership on cases in the grievance file will be forthcoming with additional contract analysis in the coming months. 

Dave Powell

Grievance Lead

In Memoriam: Sarah Mann (1985-2023)

Guest post from Mark McCutcheon

Sarah Mann, a longtime member of the AU community, has died. Most recently she was a CUPE Tutor in Labour Studies, but she completed two MAs, one with MAIS, the other at Brock with Dr Margot Francis and RA work for Dr Josh Evans (U of Alberta). Before that, I’d supervised her undergrad English studies. She won many if not most student awards AU offers: she won the 2011 Roberts Memorial Award, for undergrad feminist research, for her essay “Fucking Media: Sex Worker Representation and Resistance in Digital Culture.” To borrow words from Jane Arscott’s recent tribute, losing Sarah is a “bittersweet reminder of AU at its best”; she was, “one of our own.” Her loss leaves a crater in this place. I am destroyed.

As a MAIS student, Sarah worked as my research assistant. Her own grad research used AU’s own social network site, the Landing, to publicly research and archive the contents of the groundbreaking lesbian porn magazine On Our Backs. Sarah presented on her research as the first student contributor to the Faculty’s long running research talk series. Sarah was pursuing a SSHRC-funded PhD at Laurentian and teaching at Brock and Laurentian at the time of her death. We kept in touch, I was always writing reference letters for her and I was thrilled when my AU colleague Bob Barnetson made it possible for Sarah to teach here.

A favourite anecdote about Sarah’s graduate research is that, being publicly available online, her work drew interest from a prospective student from halfway round the world. This student wrote to me asking to take the ‘sex course’ I was apparently teaching. To illustrate their credentials, this person sent several photos of themselves doing nude yoga. But the best part is that all these inquiries—and nudes!—were going first to then-AU President Frits Pannekoek, whose office then relayed them to me.

Sarah was a vital presence in Facebook, where she organized a creative writing group for pandemic coping; her constant updates are how I learned she had been adopted (informally or officially, idk) by an Indigenous family in Sudbury, to help her while she studied at Laurentian. [hope i got this detail right—ed.]

But socials and correspondence are how I also know just how precariously Sarah lived, not by choice, of course, but because poverty, and because personal challenges—barriers and troubles she talked about openly but also, critically, understood as structural challenges, systemic failings of underfunded health care and social services. These formed an important focus for her PhD work, on the mental health needs and supports at Canadian universities.

Dr Francis, Sarah’s mother and I have begun working together on plans to publish and archive Sarah’s extraordinary scholarly and critical writings. Sarah was an excellent writer; she also knew the importance of organizing work. To coordinate these efforts and ensure they give appropriate consideration to the family’s wishes and interests, and to help these projects benefit and strengthen the communities and causes that were important to Sarah, Margot and I invite Sarah’s colleagues, collaborators, and community of creatives to get in touch (about publishers, publishing process, archival practice, etc.) and to get updates on our work (and others’ projects, works we’re trying to locate, opportunities to collaborate, etc.). We’re reaching out via Facebook and by email: howtonotsuckatwriting@proton.me, a secure email we’ve named after her funny, wise essay writing guide, https://howtonotsuckatwriting.ca, which you really must read.

“Queer research is about saving queer lives,” Sarah wrote in 2012, in a debate amongst AU faculty and students over what “safety” means, and for whom, in open learning spaces.

The thrust of my research is that the exclusion of certain queer bodies from public spaces (like this one) is 1) linked to an extraordinary amount of violence that those same queers experience on a daily basis and 2) decided on the basis of how class, racial, gendered and other sexual-social statuses mark some bodies and images as particularly disruptive in relation to heteronormative standards. I would be happy—delighted, even—to talk at length with anyone who is curious about how the heteronormative standards for "safety" from the kinds of sexuality that are imagined as disruptive in fact make a great many poor, trans, racialized, and women queers very unsafe.

Sarah, we intend to carry on this conversation, by celebrating your work, and by sharing and connecting more with the communities you were so lovingly building a better future for.

Rest in Power, Sarah.

Both photos are from Sarah’s MAIS graduation in Athabasca on June 12, 2015.

The photo shows from left to right; Joshua Evans, Janyce Mann (Sarah's mom), Sarah Mann, Mark McCutcheon, FHSS Dean Veronica Thompson. Everyone is close together, smiling, standing in front of a black curtain. Joshua, Mark, and Veronica are wearing their red and black PhD regalia and Sarah is wearing her Master’s graduation regalia.

The photo shows Sarah Mann and Mark McCutcheon standing next to each other and smiling. Sarah has a nametag around her neck. There is a large flower arrangement behind Mark and an Athabasca Unversity banner behind Sarah.

Link to the Go Fund Me campaign: https://www.gofundme.com/f/paying-tribute-to-sarah-mann

Link to the AU Hub article: https://news.athabascau.ca/faculty/faculty-of-humanities-social-sciences/in-memoriam-sarah-mann/

Link to the obit with funeral info: https://www.simplewishesnorth.com/obituary/Sarah-Mann

Dear Members of the Reappointment Committee for the Provost:

Our Position

We are writing on behalf of AUFA and its members to express our strong opposition to the renewal of Dr. Matthew Prineas’ term as Provost at Athabasca University. The Provost is a pivotal academic role in the university, and is central to providing space for an academic community to flourish, but also for building an equitable and supportive workplace enabling all employees to do excellent academic work. Under Matthew Prineas’ watch, AUFA has seen exponential growth in issues culminating in grievances that expose AU’s toxic workplace culture and a diminishment in our ability to be leaders of academic excellence.

The recent employee engagement survey report supports this position, in addition to what members are telling us directly. AUFA is extremely concerned about chronic low staff morale, deteriorating mental health of members, and the routine exclusion of staff from key decisions that impact the future of Athabasca University. The lack of engagement from the Provost with faculty and significant challenges faced by them has undermined their ability to be responsive to students, work collegially, or even maintain good health. 

Failures to Deliver on Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI)

AUFA is alarmed by the record number of serious grievances  reporting discrimination, harassment, and harm being experienced by our members. In response, instead of addressing these concerns in a collegial manner, they are ignored and consequently require being escalated to arbitration to attract any meaningful response from HR. Worse, the Collective Agreement, Article 7: Discipline, is being used to target and isolate members, particularly pre-tenure, equity-deserving members, in response to reported conflicts, all under the watch of Dr. Prineas acting as the primary executive officer responsible for overseeing affected members. The pattern can be named: it is systemic institutional racism.

After decades of institutional inaction, over the last year AUFA and its members have repeatedly raised concerns, naming serious equity issues. These concerns continue to remain unaddressed, or at best received vague and ill-defined responses. The incumbent Provost has refused to engage with AUFA members on the development of an equity office, signed on to the Scarborough Charter without meaningful commitment to supporting the flourishing of Black academics and staff members, and made empty promises on moving forward with conciliation with and active support of Indigenous Peoples, including with our own faculty and staff members.

AU needs a diverse faculty to engage with a diverse student population, including at the graduate level. The Provost has failed to attract and retain a diverse faculty, and members of equity deserving groups are grossly underrepresented at AU. As an academic institution that purports to support EDI and decolonization, AU is at odds with its Mission to reduce barriers to education. The lack of active engagement on issues of JEDI is jeopardizing AU’s responsibilities to the Tri Council policies on Equity, the Scarborough Charter, and the TRC Calls to Action, which now invites significant reputational harm to AU and its faculty. 

The ILE Debacle and Unsustainable Mismanagement

While the ILE promised much, under the management of the Provost, it has delivered little. The result to date is a general sense that the expertise and knowledge of staff members is irrelevant, and managerialism has been allowed to run amok, stifling true innovation. Massive financial investment in the ILE project has deprived faculties from maintaining their staff complements, and workloads for those who remain are increasingly unmanageable. While enrolments continue to drop, payouts to departing executives are up, and executive positions have ballooned.

The disproportionate emphasis on MSCHE accreditation, at the expense of reaching underserved Albertans, most notably Indigenous, single-parent students, and students seeking accommodations for learning differences is disappointing. This misuse of faculty time and resources is a demonstration of yet another ill-conceived project of the Provost. While AU employees have asked for an analysis of the benefit of this program, the Provost has provided nothing.

Our members collectively hold extensive institutional memory. From our perspective, the Provost has much to answer for in the lackluster performance of the entire executive team, particularly with the management of the Human Resources Department. We have watched HR extend its scope into affairs that normally function under the purview of the VP Academic, making decisions that used to be part of a functioning collegial governance model. Reliance on external legal investigations of our members based on specious allegations is particularly troubling. 

The Provost has managed an embarrassing and harmful EDI and decolonization response, and led us toward the current unsustainable financial trajectory. While attention has been devoted to failing projects, the lack of institution-wide strategic and academic planning itself is a cause for alarm. We therefore implore the Provostial Review Committee to weigh these concerns, and rather than acquiesce to Dr Prineas’ appointment renewal, to put the needs of AU’s faculty and students first and foremost. We deserve better. 

A Call to Members to Respond

The reappointment of a Provost is subject to AU’s Appointment and Reappointment of Academic Vice-Presidents Policy, and related procedure. Under this Policy, a call out and election are required for appointment of committee members (Section 4.10). This process is part of required collegial governance and provides an important opportunity to hear from each faculty. 

The President has further invited each of us as valued community members to provide written contributions to the renewal committee. We encourage members to write individual submissions, which are impactful in ways an Open Letter may not be. Feel free to elaborate what’s most important to you, and why.

Signed, written contributions should be submitted in confidence to the committee at provostrenewalsubmissions@athabascau.ca by Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:30 p.m. (Mountain).

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. 

AU refuses to accommodate parental leave

An AUFA academic recently adopted a newborn. Article 16.7 of the collective agreement outlines parental leave benefits for AUFA members who adopt children. These provisions include a three-month period of leave with full pay plus an additional period of unpaid leave. The combined paid and unpaid leaves can total no more than 62 weeks of leave. During the unpaid leave, AU continues to provide benefits and the AUFA member may be entitled to claim Employment insurance (EI) benefits.

In this case, the adoption occurred approximately halfway through the AUFA member’s research and study leave (RSL). The member sought to pause their RSL for a period of six months of parental leave and resume RSL after the parental leave was complete. This is in keeping with past practice and a normal means of accommodation.  

AU denied the member’s request to pause their RSL. Instead, AU indicated that if the member wished to take a parental leave, the member could terminate the RSL. This option would derail the member’s research plans and mean waiting at least three years before the member could apply to take another leave. This is a significant matter of equity and discrimination, punishing a member for their family status.

AU has offered little explanation for its refusal to accommodate the member’s parental leave, other than they simply did not have to do it. The paper trail suggests this decision to not accommodate was made within HR, not at the faculty level. The member’s supervisor and Dean had not only approved pausing their RSL, but were extremely supportive of the plan.

AU has an obligation to accommodate an AUFA member’s family status, which includes an obligation to provide care to an infant. AU also has a lengthy history of pausing RSL when members become sick, take maternity leave, or require other forms of leave. Given these obligations, the history of past practice, and the absence of any reason to think the member’s request would cause any undue hardship on AU, AUFA filed a grievance and had warned HR that a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission was being seriously considered.

Work now, grieve later

A guiding principle of labour relations in Canada is that, when workers and unions disagree with an employer’s administration of the collective agreement, they are required to follow the employer’s direction until their grievance or complaint can be resolved. Given the delays common to grievances and human right complaints, this “work now, grieve later” doctrine means workers are basically stuck making due.

Given that, the member did, under protest, decide to continue the RSL until it ends in June and then commence a short parental leave. This is not the arrangement the member wanted, but it was the only option reasonably available to the member.

This arrangement is sub-optimal. It denied the member the opportunity to be with their newborn baby on a full-time basis and bond with them. It also requires the member and the member’s family make unexpected, expensive, and difficult arrangements for childcare during the remaining period of the member’s RSL.

The member asserts that AU’s unwillingness to provide the most basic of accommodations has turned what should be a joyous time into one marked by stress, conflict, and a profound sense that the member has been betrayed by AU when the member was most vulnerable.

This behaviour by AU sits uncomfortably with the university’s i-CARE values that undergird its Imagine plan These values allegedly include:

• Integrity: We are guided by ethics, honesty, and fairness in all our actions, engendering trust within our University community.

• Adaptability: We are flexible. We respond to the changing needs of our University and its learners with courage and continuous improvement.

• Respect: We foster respect by contributing to an environment in which every individual is valued. 

Denying a member parental leave for no reason doesn’t engender trust, doesn’t respond to the changing needs of the university staff, and doesn’t show employees that they are valued. This is the latest in a series of large and small attacks on its members that includes but is not limited to:

•  accidentally terminating market supplements for female nurses with no notice,

• trying to roll back contract protections, targeting professional members in particular,

• failing to carve two-thirds of AUFA members out of union and then turning to picking members off one-by-one,

• accusing a member with a terminally ill spouse of faking their stress leave,

• refusing to table a full offer in bargaining for months on end,

• implementing a disastrous re-organization of IT,

• dissolving a promotion committee without cause, and

• permanently moving staff to home offices without a policy or adequate compensation.

AU had reversed the decision to deny pausing the member’s RSL, only after significant pressure from AUFA. Unfortunately, damage had already been inflicted as the member and their family had to scramble to change their plans and incurred significant monetary cost—including loss of pay for the member’s partner. Moreover, the sudden denial made it necessary to look into hiring a nanny—extremely difficult for the new parents—and, to make it all work, the member’s mother-in-law made trips up from Calgary to Edmonton to watch over the new baby. She made the trip every week until it became too unsustainable.

It is unclear if the denial of RSL is the misguided actions of one HR staffer or if, indeed, AU’s i-CARE values are simply a sham. A very real question AU may need to confront very soon is why anyone would want to take a job for such a poorly run and mean-spirited organization.

Happy Mother’s Day from AU, I guess.

Richard Roach, Executive Director

Your turn

We’d like to hear what you think about AU’s unwillingness to pause a member’s sabbatical while the member was on parental leave. All comments are anonymous. We’ll compile the comments you leave below and provide them to Chief HR boss Charlene Polege.

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