Bargaining Update: Once more, little progress

AUFA and AU met on January 31 for another day of bargaining. The parties signed off on a couple minor items related to administration of the collective agreement and language reflecting the new bi-weekly pay periods.

AUFA presented a counter proposal on the cost-of-living adjustment. On the previous day of bargaining, AU proposed four years of zero increases. AUFA’s initial proposal, presented 10 months ago, was a 3% increase each year of a three-year agreement.

AUFA’s new amended proposal shifts to a four-year agreement. In the first two years, it asks for increases of 2% and 4% to salaries and grids. This proposal approximately matches inflation these last two years (2020 and 2021). AUFA then proposed that 2022 and 2023 cost-of-living adjustments be tied to Alberta’s consumer price index (CPI).

The goal of the proposal is to ensure AUFA members’ salaries approximately match the increase in the cost of living during the course of the agreement. AU has not formally responded to this proposal, although AU’s bargaining lead, external lawyer Chantel Kassongo, oddly proclaimed the offer to be an “escalation”. This assertion is hard to fathom, given AUFA’s proposal reflects current economic realities plus the passage of time caused by AU’s delay in tabling a monetary offer.

AUFA also tabled counter proposals regarding probation and performance of duties for professionals (Article 4), and on occupational health and safety (Article 25). AU has not yet responded to either proposal.

AUFA also presented concerns regarding the process for making changes to Blue Cross benefit entitlements. Specifically, AU has been refusing to consider changes proposed by AUFA at the joint committee tasked with managing the benefit plan. Article 10 (discrimination and harassment) and Article 17 (Association business) were also briefly discussed without resolution.

A surprising amount of time was spent addressing a technical legal matter. AUFA tabled a notice of estoppel regarding the issue of members performing work not in their job description. An estoppel notice is a legal statement to inform the other party that past practice will no longer apply regarding a specific matter.

AUFA was informing AU that, going forward, AUFA would rigorously apply the terms of the collective agreement regarding members performing work not in their job description. This notice is a legal technicality which does not substantially impact bargaining, and thus should have only taken a few minutes to address. Instead, the discussion took almost an hour and a half, in large part due to persistent questioning from Kassongo.

The dragging out of the estoppel notice discussion and AU’s lack of response to AUFA’s proposals suggest that AU is continuing its strategy of “going slow” in negotiations, which impedes progress toward a new agreement.

No further dates are currently scheduled. AUFA has proposed 12 days in February and March for bargaining. We await a reply from AU.

Jason Foster, Chair

AUFA bargaining team

AU Walks out on Mediation over IT Optimization

AUFA has had to deal with multiple grievances relating to AU’s so-called ‘IT Optimization’ strategy, including layoff language forcing members into new jobs, coercive language, and the exclusion of AUFA members from the bargaining unit. Most recently, AU abandoned the mediation that it had proposed to resolve many of these issues.

The IT department, as a result of this upheaval, is in a bad state.

Current State

The problems in IT are complicated, but are broadly categorized into issues with backward planning, unclear job descriptions, inadequate transition plans, and absent training. Normally, completion of a major reorganization would rely on documenting the current state of the department and establishing transition and training plans.

AU instead completed the major reorganization first, and then tried to coax the current state of the department into establishing transition and training plans. The expectation from IT leadership was that this ought to be accomplished in 2 – 4 months.

Not surprisingly, a smooth transition has not happened. As of writing many AUFA members are dealing with multiple jobs, confusing squad assignments, poor communication on training, inappropriate job descriptions, and a lack of management over their old work. This is particularly true with members moved from the Faculty of Business, whose original jobs were not understood at all by the central IT department. There is no indication of progress on resolving these issues. Nothing is documented, and service from the IT department is suffering.

The most recent message to members from IT deputies is that transitions can’t happen until all new hires are complete. This is the third time the goal posts have moved on transition plans, which have only been communicated verbally with no acknowledgement of the past timelines.

IT leadership have thus far refused to acknowledge any problematical issues, and statements from HR and the employer’s legal counsel have reinforced the belief that the IT department is working well, and that staff are happy.

Results from a recent survey sent to IT members last month suggest otherwise.

Grievances and Mediation

AUFA has launched multiple grievances due to problems in the IT department:

• The use of layoff language to force staff into new jobs without consultation

• A “take this job or quit” approach to redeployments

• The exclusion of IT middle managers

• Denial of Research and Study Leave (despite repeated claims all requests will be honored)

• Denial of leave time for AUFA duties (historically always granted)

• A reclassification request that was never processed by HR for two years

• A harassment complaint that was ignored by IT management and HR

Every issue in this list has been forwarded to arbitration. The employer’s lawyer contacted AUFA over the first four issues and requested mediation. AUFA requested VPIT Jennifer Schaeffer attend this mediation.

She refused.

Nevertheless, the first day of mediation was productive. We discussed a potential settlement that would walk back aspects of a grievance in exchange for a commitment from IT management towards documented, accountable solutions for issues in the department. Unfortunately, just one day before the second meeting, the employer pulled out of mediation, claiming entirely unrelated posts on the AUFA blog as a reason. This continues a pattern of the employer refusing to engage in good faith collaborative measures with AUFA, and instead push every issue to arbitration no matter the cost to AU.

Everything is being overruled and nothing is documented

In the new IT department, the average staff member reports to a manager, director, deputy, and then the VPIT. None of these four layers of management appear to have any power within the department; every request related to IT Optimization problems goes directly to the VPIT.

And there it is typically overruled.

There is now a familiar pattern of members raising issues: getting ‘buy-in’ from managers up the chain, followed by a period of awkward silence before news of the rejection arrives.

IT’s hierarchy seems to exist solely to keep staff away from the VPIT who, it’s worthwhile noting, only appears in once-monthly staff meetings where recordings are not shared and questions are not permitted.

There is also a dire absence of documentation in the department. The way the new model works—assurances for training, transition timelines, and so on – is mostly done verbally. New roles such as Technical Lead, for instance, require management-level work from AUFA members, and yet their actual duties were only ever communicated in a brief introductory presentation of the model earlier in the year.

With nothing documented, the promises and timelines from IT management are fluid and can change constantly with no memory to the past. As a result, the department is stuck in place and unable to advance. Without documented plans, accountability, and empowered managers, there is no way forward.

What’s Next?

AUFA will continue to pursue its legal strategy as it brings multiple grievances in IT to arbitration. This is a slow process, and although we hope for a positive outcome, results will take time. In the meantime, the status of the IT department continues to worsen. IT leadership has shown no interest in even admitting to, let alone resolving, issues as they have been repeatedly raised by AUFA and AUFA members in every possible venue.

It takes two parties to negotiate. Going forward, AUFA will continue working with members of the IT department on member-driven solutions to these issues.

Solidarity,

David Powell

AUFA President

A Deal's a Deal.... Except at AU

Note: The AUFA member mentioned in this blog post has consented to its publication.

Last week, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) convinced a judge to grant an injunction against Bill 9 (the Public Sector Wage Arbitration Deferral Act). Bill 9 allowed the government to violate collective agreements affecting 190,000 public-sector workers.

 In his reasons for granting the injunction, Queen’s Bench Justice Eric Macklin noted:

A member of the public expects, and is entitled to expect, that an agreement reached with the government will be honoured.

Essentially, the judge asserted that a deal is a deal. A recent development in a long-standing AUFA grievance file suggests Athabasca University doesn’t agree.

Seven years ago, AUFA began representing a member who alleged harassment. Five years ago, AUFA and AU reached a contractually binding grievance settlement. In exchange for AUFA withdrawing two grievances, a privacy complaint, and a judicial review application, AU agreed (in part) to:

1. permanently re-assign the member to a different organizational unit, and

2. assign the member a specific supervisor.

The agreement provided that that supervisor could change but that AU, AUFA, and the member must agree on the new supervisor. A change in supervisor occurred in mid-2017 via this process.

On July 21, 2019, AU labour relations advisor Abey Arnaout sent the member notice indicating the member would be returned to the organizational unit where the alleged harassment occurred (and the alleged harassers still reside) and the member would be assigned a new supervisor. A subsequent email indicated this change was effective retroactive to July 6.

Because no negotiation of the supervisory change took place and there were no provisions for ever changing the member’s organizational unit, AUFA immediately requested AU comply with the five-year-old grievance settlement and reverse the July 21 changes. AUFA indicated it would enforce this agreement if AU did not return to compliance immediately.

AU’s reply came from labour relations specialist Anik Fehr. Fehr declined to comply with the settlement agreement. Instead, she wrote (in part):

To this end, we would like to invite both AUFA and [member] to a meeting in an attempt to reach an agreement to an alternate supervisor for [member]. Should this meeting not provide resolution, or should having a meeting not be of interest to either AUFA or [member], the University, as previously proposed on numerous occasions, would again suggest resolution through the auspices of a mediation. The University is very much in favour of resolving this issue through these non-adversarial, collaborative processes.

Bob, finalizing [member’s] supervisory relationship must be completed, and the University would like to work collaboratively with AUFA and [member] to resolve this matter. I hope you will give due consideration to our proposal rather than the adversarial process you have threatened to undertake. Furthermore, the University respectfully requests a formal response to our proposal to be received no later than August 2, 2019.  Should we not receive a formal response by this date, the University will finalize the transition to [member’s] reporting line. 

AU’s position is problematic in six ways:

1. AU is in violation of the 2014 settlement agreement that it signed.

2. If the member fails to comply with AU’s illegal directive, the member is at risk of discipline.

3. AU wishes to negotiate a change to the supervisor (a permissible action) but seeks to change the terms of the 2014 agreement by demanding mediation if no agreement is reached.

4. AU asserts that, absent a change in supervisor (and there is no compelling reason for this change), it will simply continue violating the agreement. So, essentially, AU is trying to force AUFA and the member to negotiate with a metaphorical gun to their heads.

5. AU ignores that it has put the member back into the organizational unit that still houses the member’s alleged harassers. There are no provisions for such a change in the settlement agreement.

6. AU claims to want to resolve the matter “through these non-adversarial, collaborative processes”, but AU’s own behaviour in the matter is clearly illegal, aggressive, and unethical.

This behaviour by AU (and specifically HR) tells us several things:

1. AU doesn’t keep its word. The 2014 grievance settlement is very clear. AU has decided to simply ignore its legal obligations.

2. AU is hypocritical. AU’s putative desire for a non-adversarial, collaborative process sits at odds with its actual behaviour.

3. AU doesn’t care about its employees. Telling a member late on a Sunday night that they must suddenly work in proximity with their alleged harassers and, subsequently, using this change as leverage to force a change in supervisor are deeply unethical behaviours.

As Justice Macklin wrote about Bill 9, “it is generally in the public interest that parties to otherwise valid agreements, freely negotiated, honor their obligations under those agreements.” AU’s decision to welch on the 2014 settlement that it signed means AU workers must now question whether they can trust any statement made or agreement entered into by AU.

This behaviour by HR is neither respectful nor an act of integrity, which you’ll recall are two of the five I-CARE values promulgated in the Imagine plan. HR’s deceit will doubtless reinforce the growing skepticism in AU’s senior executive that is evident in the recent engagement survey.

AUFA has filed a grievance and is exploring other enforcement options to ensure the member’s rights are protected.

Bob Barnetson, Member

AUFA Grievance Committee