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: Mediation Fails After Employer Makes Mockery of Process

AU and AUFA met in formal mediation with mediator Mark Asbell on March 8. Mediation concluded at the end of the day without a mediator’s recommendation. This blog post explains what happened, why mediation ended, and what happens next.

The parties met with the mediator at 9:00 am. After introductions, the mediator met with each party separately to discuss “hills to die on” and outstanding issues where movement is possible. This is a normal part of the mediation process and the basic goal is to find common ground as a means of moving negotiations forward in a productive way.

For its part, AUFA made clear AU’s withdrawal of damaging language aimed at undermining the rights of professionals remains an AUFA priority. We also stressed that a fair wage settlement, reasonable language around designation, and AU’s withdrawal of language limiting Research and Study Leave (RSL) leave for both academics and professionals were equally important for members. In keeping with the normal “give and take” of the mediation process, AUFA also indicated areas where we were open to discussion, including cost-of-living adjustments (COLA).

Mid-morning the mediator informed AUFA that AU was preparing a “full proposal” for our consideration and requested AUFA give them a couple hours to complete that work. Even though AU had already had almost a full week to prepare a counter-proposal, we agreed. A couple hours turned into almost eight hours.

At almost 5:00 pm, AUFA was informed of the “new” proposal. The proposal was nearly identical to their February 28 proposal except for a handful of minor changes to appeal processes and equity language. The proposal includes the elimination of professional RSL and the “buy-out” for pennies on the dollar. It had the same severe concessions with no movement on academic RSL, professional lay-offs or COLA. None of AUFA’s substantive proposals were considered.

It was conveyed to AUFA this was “their last proposal”.

The AUFA bargaining team deliberated on this unfortunate turn of events. We had fully been expecting at the very least a serious AU effort at reaching a mutually satisfactory deal. What we were left with instead was a wasted day and a Board proposal not materially different from its previous proposal.

AUFA came into mediation serious about trying to find an agreement and communicated that clearly to the mediator. In deliberations, AUFA came to the conclusion that AU entered mediation with no intention of finding a deal and used the day to waste time and frustrate all involved. In short, AUFA decided that AU was making a mockery of the mediation process.

While AUFA had booked the rest of the week to devote to mediation, we now believe AU was not serious about finding a solution. With that realization we requested the mediator step away and report that no mediated agreement was possible. Once the mediator issues that report, formal mediation concludes.

It is the bargaining team’s belief that AU is trying to force a strike in an effort to bust the union. We do not want a strike, but will take the steps we need to protect the interest of AUFA members.

The next step is a 14-day cooling off period, where neither party can take any further steps under the Labour Relations Code (although bargaining is allowed to continue). The parties have set aside time for mediation this week and we have two days of bargaining scheduled for next week. Despite our disappointment, AUFA continues to want to move bargaining forward, so the bargaining team will assess our next steps.

During the 14 days, AUFA can can take steps to apply for a strike vote of members. AU can also move towards a Board vote to lock-out AUFA members. After either vote, the parties must give 72 hours’ notice to activate a strike or lockout. Bargaining can continue throughout.

In the coming days AUFA will offer further communications about next steps and set up a town hall to discuss the state of bargaining.

Jason Foster, Chair

AUFA Bargaining Team

Results of Strike and Strike Pay Consultation

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

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

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

• How will AUFA allocate strike pay?

• What strike duties will members be asked to perform?

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

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

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

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

Who should strike?

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

• those on maternity and/or parental leave,

• those on workers’ compensation,

• those on long-term disability, or

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

When polled, 94.7% of respondents supported this recommendation.

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

JAC agreed, and adjusted its recommendation:

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

• those on maternity and/or parental leave,

• those on workers’ compensation,

• those on long-term disability,

• those on research and study leave, or

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

What labour should be withdrawn?

JAC recommended that during a strike:

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

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

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

How will strike pay be allocated?

JAC recommended that strike pay be allocated to members who:

• provided contact and banking information (a practical requirement)

• withdrew their labour as set out above, and

• participated in strike duties.

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

What strike duties will AUFA members be asked to perform?

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

When polled, 90.5% of respondents supported this recommendation.

Member comments focused on two issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When polled, 95.7% of respondents supported this recommendation.

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

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

Member Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

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

98% of AUFA members reject AU’s layoff proposals

In collective bargaining, AU has proposed significant changes to the current layoff language. Earlier this week, AUFA provided details about these proposals, which would make it cheaper (and thus easier) for AU to layoff AUFA members. Specifically, if agreed to, AU’s proposal would mean:

1. AUFA members would receive less compensation if they were permanently laid off. This would be particularly the case for professional staff.

2. Academics would have lesser recall rights. Professionals would no longer have recall rights

3. The cost of permanently laying off professional staff would likely be lower than the cost to AU of fighting a discipline appeal. This opens the door to AU improperly using layoff language to address discipline problems.

4. The introduction of temporary layoff for professionals would make their employment much more precarious and would require us to trust that AU would use this power in a reasonable manner.

AUFA polled its members. There were 158 responses (so 37.6% of members voted). The results are:

• 97.5% did not support AU’s proposal to reduce academic layoff notice by 6 months.

• 98.1% did not support AU’s proposal to reduce professional layoff notice.

• 98.1% did not support AU’s proposal to allow AU to temporarily layoff professional staff members for up to 3 months at a time.

Member comments about these proposals included:

• This is appalling. After 15 years of service, AU wants to kick me to curb with 12 months of wages? How little does AU value its staff? Why would anyone come to work at a university that constantly seeks to grind staff wages and benefits. Disgusting proposal.

• This is the worst proposal I have seen yet. We are permanent but you can lay us off at any time temporarily or permanently without recall rights.

• This proposal is terrible and represents the employer's disregard for AUFA members' job security. It also attacks professionals and strives to strip us of hard-won rights and benefits, which is totally unacceptable.

• I would like to know who exactly came up with the proposal? Which people?

• AU is acting like an arch enemy of fair and reasonable working conditions. How can any of us, in good faith, recommend this university as a good place to work when it is clearly attacking its employees?

• I just wonder when a strike will be triggered here. Management's hostility to the employees which operate this university is getting a little sickening.

• I'd be more accommodating of temporary layoffs if were *actually* a lack of work- but has that EVER been true? "lack of work" is really "failure to plan" and "inability to manage more than one project at a time". This language and benefits, affording us job security, termination notice, recall, R&S, etc, are the entire reason I've made a career at AU. …[I]f they succeed in ripping those down and turning this into "just another job", then I'll go find another one.

• This proposal is adding another layer of stress and anxiety to AUFA employees during the already stressful period of COVID-19. Since online education grows up globally, the decreased attraction to AU might end up with losing more skilled and expert staff to competitors. AU is in a transitioning time of ILE, so encouraging everyone to be involved in the process is more critical than ever. So, why discourage us?

• It is so demoralizing to work under AU's never-ending gestures and moves that tell me that they don't value my work, my contributions, and my expertise.

• These are dangerous proposals and only reinforce AU's attempt to split the AUFA union and attack its professional and academic staff.

• The university Exec and Board continue to probe and prod for a weak point in AUFA's unity. We cannot show any weakness whatsoever. … The Exec and Board continue to fundamentally misunderstand why AU survives to this day and that is because of the unique relationship between faculty and professionals. … We should drag this out until a new President arrives. Highly doubt the first thing a new President would want on his/her watch is an ugly work stoppage.

• This is clearly an attempt to cut and divide the union. We must hold strong as this proposal shows what their "OneAU" vision really is and it is evil!

• The Middle States committee gushed on about the loyalty, enthusiasm, and work ethic of the AU staff. Guess that doesn't mean a thing to the Exec. Do they think they'll get that kind of support from the low-paid gig workers they seem to want? Is there a lingering belief with the Exec that current AU workers are resistant to change and must be pushed out at all costs, including the reputation of AU as a good place to work?

• This proposal by AU is an insult and an attack on AUFA. The university should be ashamed of itself as should the HR department and the executive as a whole. The people who do the work are the ones being attacked. Shameful!

• The temp layoff proposal is ridiculous. They would be treating full-time employees as casual on-call staff. Totally unacceptable.

• Stronger together! We have to fight back! This a nasty OneAU!

• This proposal just shows lack of respect to your workforce. The temporary lay-off is absurd, because it gives power to your direct manager to give or not work to you in order to get rid of you for whatever valid or not reason. It is just shows how detached our Management is from the rest of us... good that they say how they respect all the work we do at every meeting.

• These proposals clearly are intended to allow the university to shift to more contract work (why go through the hassle of permanent employees when you can just hire out to another organization) and the choice of implementing these requests right now appears to be a way to offload the costs of the reorganization plans that are already underway. It is all very worrisome and does not foster any trust in the university as a whole (but then, if they just want to contract out all work, who cares if your employees actually value working for your organization or feel safe? Not the university, that much is apparent).

• Besides the lack of security engendered by a policy that could result in professional staff being laid off due to lack of work, this policy also disincentivizes professionals to work efficiently and in a timely manner for fear of appearing to be out of work. Why would AU propose something that sabotages productivity?

• For the temporary layoff with the person not receiving compensation (salary or benefits), then why in the world would that person stay available for AU? Unless this is the underlying intent?

• It is very disheartening that AU/HR continues to move forward with actions that demoralize professional staff in particular. Staff should not feel that their position is constantly under threat of being eliminated.

• The AU proposal shows how much (i.e., little) they value employees (academic and professional). Employees seem to be simply resources, much like machines in an assembly line. Swap them in and out with no regard to the fact they are people who have given so much to the university.

• I am very sorry to hear this is what AU is proposing but also shocked with the proposal of the temporary layoff of people for 3 months at a time and not pay a salary to them? What is the person supposed to do? Find other work? for 3 months?? This encourages layoffs to cause stress and undue hardships for employees and families and communities. It encourages one to find other work and not return, thus losing their amount of payout money as well. I cannot imagine that this is in AU vision and mandate for thriving communities… .

• AU's proposals are completely unacceptable. We need to fight this at all costs.

• The AU Proposal makes it appear like the Powers-that-be are getting ready to clean house.

• It is very disheartening that AU/HR continues to move forward with actions that demoralize professional staff in particular. Staff should not feel that their position is constantly under threat of being eliminated.

• The idea that an employer can temporarily lay me off for 90 days without benefits and without cause is cruel, offensive, and absurd. We all have reoccurring obligations, such as mortgages and ongoing health issues, that we need time to deal with if our financial situation changes. It is unfair to put full-time permanent employees into such a precarious position. …[T]his ceaseless aggression towards my salary and benefits by AU is hard not to take personal. …[T]he union is not an external body, it is made up of AU staff. An attack on the union is an attack on the staff, at least that is how it feels to me. Does the employer understand how this extreme bargaining and bad faith maneuvering … affects their employees?

So, that’s probably a hard pass then. Tune in next week, when we will be examining AU’s proposed changes to the discipline language.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Bargaining Analysis 1: AU’s layoff proposals

Two weeks ago, AUFA and AU exchanged opening proposals. This post is the first in a series of blog posts that provides more detailed analyses of both AUFA’s and AU’s proposals. This blog examines AU’s proposed changes to our layoff language. AUFA has not proposed any changes to these provisions.

Current Language

Article 12 of the current collective agreement allows AU to discontinue (i.e., terminate) the employment of AUFA members. This can happen when there is financial stringency or when AU is engaged in a reorganization. Such terminations are colloquially called “layoffs”. These provisions apply equally to academic and professional AUFA members.

If an AUFA member with a permanent job is laid off, they are entitled to:

• 12 months of notice of the layoff,

• a severance payment of 1 month of pay per year of service up to six months of pay.

The upshot is that an AUFA member with 6 years of service would be entitled to the equivalent of 18 months of pay (i.e., 12 months of notice plus 6 months of severance).

(Slightly complicating things is the fact that, in the last round of bargaining, AUFA agreed to changes that allow the employer to pay out the 12-month notice period, instead of having the member serve out the notice period. Subsequently, AU unilaterally asserted that, when paying out the period of notice, AU only has to pay out the 12 months of wages and not the value of the benefits during this period. Benefits have a value of about 20% of overall compensation. This issue is subject to a grievance that will be heard in May.)

AUFA members who are laid off also have recall rights for four years. Essentially, laid off AUFA members must receive first consideration for all positions for which they are qualified. And, if you return to AU after a layoff, you are entitled to the same contractual status, leaves and accumulated benefits that you had when you left.

If a layoff occurs as a result of a re-organization, AU also has modest obligations to consider retraining, redeployment (i.e., adding new duties to a job, transfer to a different job, or creating a new job), and early retirement. If an AUFA member is redeployed to a job with a lower salary, the member’s original salary remains intact.

Finally, Article 12 does not allow the employer from temporarily laying off AUFA members for short periods of time.

AU’s Proposal Language

AU has proposed significant changes to our layoff language. You can read the proposal here.

These include:

• creating separate layoff provisions for academic and professional members,

• reducing the overall compensation provided when an AUFA member is laid off, and

• introducing new provisions to allow the temporary layoff of professional members.

The existing Article 12 is re-titled such that it applies only to academic members (i.e., professors and academic coordinators). The revised article proposes:

• Reducing the notice period to 6 months (from 12).

• If AU elects to pay out the notice period, the payout would not include the value of benefits.

• Recall rights would be shortened to 2 years (from 4).

• If you are recalled, you do not maintain your contractual status (e.g., current rank and tenure).

• If you are rehired, you may need to repay some of your payout. For example, if your total payout is 12 months but you were rehired after 6, you would need to repay the other 6 months (even though your rehiring may have resulted in you now holding a lower-paying job).

• If AU offers retraining, it is no longer required to pay your salary during this period of retraining.

A new article is introduced regarding permanent layoffs of professional members. This proposal allows the Board complete discretion in whom it wishes to terminate. If a professional member is identified for termination:

• The professional member receives 90 days of notice or is paid 90 days of wages in lieu of notice (down from 12 months).

• Professional members with more than 3 years of service may also receive a separation payment as shown in Table 1 (also a reduction).

Table 1. AU’s Proposed Separation Payment in Months

• This change entails a significant loss in termination pay as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Current and Proposed Severance in Months

• Professional members would no longer have recall rights.

• If AU offers you an alternative position with the same salary and benefits (in lieu of layoff) and you refuse, you do not receive the separation payment.

Finally, AU is proposing new language that would give AU the power to temporarily layoff professional members. Under this proposal:

• AU could give professionals 14 days of notice of a temporary layoff due to lack of work (except in circumstances beyond the control of the Board, when no notice would be required).

• The temporary layoff could last as long as 90 days.

• During the period of temporary layoff, it appears professionals would receive no salary and would not have access to any benefits (although this is not clear).

• Professionals would receive 1 week of notice if they are recalled.

• If a temporary layoff lasted longer than 90 days, professionals would be considered permanently laid off and would be entitled to the professional separation payment discussed above (but, it appears, not the notice period).

At present, no rationale has been advanced by AU to justify it proposal.

Implications

AU’s proposal has several implications:

1. AUFA members would receive less compensation if they are permanently laid off. This is particularly the case for professional staff.

2. Academics would have lesser recall rights. Professionals would no longer have recall rights

3. It would be cheaper (and thus easier) for AU to permanently layoff AUFA members.

4. The cost of permanently laying off professional staff would likely be lower than the cost to AU of fighting a discipline appeal. This opens the door to AU improperly using layoff language to address discipline problems.

5. The introduction of temporary layoff for professionals makes their employment much more precarious and requires us to trust that AU would use this power in a reasonable manner.

Your Views

AUFA’s bargaining team is interested in hearing the views of the AUFA membership about this proposal. To that end, we have created a short survey.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

AU facing substantial cuts, potential layoffs

On March 31, President Neil Fassina’s Connect with the President session raised several concerning issues. At this point, we know the following.

First, the government has given AU an “expenditure reduction target” of approximately $34 millions over three years. In year one, this reduction is approximately $28 million (roughly 18-22% of the budget). This expenditure reduction (which has apparently been applied to all institutions) compounds the base grant reductions set out in the budget.

The Board appears to be complying with this very unreasonable government demand, rather than resisting it. While the president mentioned that AU would be looking at ways to reduce expenses other than layoffs, it is likely there will be layoffs. AUFA has prepared an FAQ about the layoff provisions in the AUFA agreement.

Accommodating a $34 million reduction through layoffs would require the termination of approximately 300 staff members (the number would vary depending on who was laid off). If there are roughly 750 full-timers, this would mean laying off approximately 40% of staff (this calculation excluded part-time tutors and academic experts) so, cutting expenditures via layoffs, would, ironically, substantially increase costs in the short-term.

Such a level of layoff would likely compromise the ability of the institution to deliver its current programming (which would reduce revenue). It would also further undermine morale and damage the institution’s reputation. Three hundred layoffs would also create severance costs of somewhere between $30 and $40 million (again, depending on who was laid off). AU does not presently have this amount of money in reserves

Second, all three unions (AUFA, AUPE and CUPE) are beginning bargaining shortly, as are most other faculty associations. This expenditure reduction target will likely result in the employer tabling wage and language rollbacks. The employer is likely to indicate that, if AUFA does not accept rollbacks, there will be layoffs. It is unclear whether or not the employer will be offering anything worthwhile in exchange.

Third, during the Connect with the President session this morning, Neil said: 

One final question that[ …]that relates to individuals asking "What if I can't work at home," whether or not it be because of child care, elder care, internet connections [… ]and this is another one of those stark unfortunate realties that while we seek to keep our team members as whole as we humanly can for as long as we humanly can, there will be a date in the not so distant future where the university has to make a decision. It has to be able to say that unless you're able to work for us full time - I get it there are needs to work around in the home environment - but unless there is an opportunity to work fulltime we can't legitimately continue to employ people on a less than fulltime basis and still be able to keep our organization running. It's going to be hard, and frankly it's not possible to keep people entirely whole indefinitely as we start to face some of the true working from home challenges.

AUFA is very concerned that AU is preparing to force AU employees to choose between their jobs and their caretaking responsibilities. These employees are more likely (but not exclusively) to be women.

This announcement was very disheartening and may be be discriminatory. As a means of assisting AUFA members who may be negatively affected, the Membership Engagement Committee will be surveying staff who have been moved to home offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic to identify their needs and required accommodations. Please expect the MEC committee to be in touch with members shortly.

If you are concerned about being personally targeted due to caretaker responsibilities, please contact the AUFA Office at aufahq@aufa.ca

Jolene Armstrong, President