Petition: Require COVID-19 preventative measures at FHSS Symposium

The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (FHSS) is hosting a symposium September 22-23, 2022. The Dean’s Office has promoted this event as an opportunity for FHSS to reconnect after a long hiatus, in order to build community and a sense of belonging. However, the lack of directives to make the event safer and more accessible to those who want to participate is at odds with this goal. 

Human Resources has provided no preventative measures related to COVID-19 to be implemented, other than asking those with symptoms to stay home. Preventative measures can include providing and requiring N95 masks, providing HEPA filtration in conference rooms, opening windows, and providing rapid tests to attendees. Requiring all attendees to wear masks and having rapid tests available is a small price to pay to facilitate broader participation.  

Although several members have repeatedly asked about additional preventative measures, the Office of the Dean of FHSS and HR have only agreed to meet the lowest bar possible, as required by Alberta Health Facilities and federal health authorities. Other academic conferences have shown leadership in this area and have taken measures to both ensure better accessibility and protect attendees. For example, last month the American Sociological Association required vaccination, masking, and provided rapid tests for attendees at their conference. Instead of providing these sensible and minimally intrusive requirements, the Office of the Dean has stated that those who “have concerns about large gatherings” should attend virtually.  

Despite the lack of public health measures at the provincial and federal level, COVID-19 continues to be a public health issue. In many places, COVID-related deaths this year have exceeded those from last year (for example, Ottawa). COVID continues to exact a high toll, causing hospitalizations, missed work, and deaths that disproportionately affect BIPOC, disabled, older, and low-income people who are more exposed and less protected. In Alberta, COVID deaths continue to rise, and health experts are predicting a fall surge in COVID cases. 

For reasons of equity and workplace safety, AUFA and the undersigned are now asking FHSS to voluntarily adopt preventative measures to both encourage wider accessibility, and to prioritize the health and wellbeing of our colleagues and their families who are immunocompromised, disabled, or caring for those who are not able to be vaccinated or who are at increased risk. These measures will allow greater participation for members, foster community, and protect everyone who will be attending or working at the event. To fail to provide these measures is to facilitate further exclusions.  

While this conference is for FHSS members, the symposium guidelines can set a precedent across faculties. We invite you to sign this AUFA petition to require preventative measures for the Symposium. 

Resources: 

A blog post by a well-known writer, educator and trainer for transformative justice and disability justice Mia Mingus about the difficulty for disabled people to navigate pandemic while preventative measures are made options (CW: death): https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2022/01/16/you-are-not-entitled-to-our-deaths-covid-abled-supremacy-interdependence/ 

A Twitter thread by Stephanie Tait (@StephTaitWrites), a disability inclusion specialist, about the downloading of risk onto high risk people: https://twitter.com/StephTaitWrites/status/1567593587109666816?s=20&t=diBYBIgz9kq15DAQmd_miQ 

An NPR article about the experiences of disabled people: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/14/1109874420/covid-safety-disabled-people-immunocompromised 

Spring survey results: Continued distrust in AU executive and strong strike threat

In June, volunteers with AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) completed the sixth membership engagement survey. This survey included the usual climate questions as well as explored issues related to the recently concluded round of bargaining, the jobs in Athabasca issue (which has since become a significant issue), and AU’s implementation of Netskope surveillance software on members’ computers. 

This iteration of the survey was delayed from the targeted April/May timing, which likely impacted response rates. Eighty-two randomly selected members (just under 20% of the membership) completed the call-based survey, with representation across departments and employee types. 

Climate Questions 

Survey callers asked four recurring questions on the general climate at AU. Overall, members report continued distrust in the AU executive, while AUFA’s work is broadly supported. There is an interesting discrepancy between the 39% of members who reported high morale compared to 77% who reported enjoying starting work in the morning. This likely reflects members’ appreciation for the work they do while also reflecting their frustration with their working conditions. 

Looking further at the question of trust in AU’s executive team, there was a slight increase since the last survey (in fall 2021), from 15% to 20% expressing trust, which is still far below the highest rate of 30% who agreed with this question in the very first survey (in fall 2019). There were no clear trends in terms of which member groups are more or less likely to agree or disagree. For example, when analyzing responses based on length of service, new hires reported around the same level of distrust in executive and trust in AUFA as longer-serving staff. 

In the comments provided by members regarding AU’s executive, most expressed strongly negative feelings, with the following emerging as themes: 

• feelings of being mistreated, belittled, or disrespected by the employer  

• dissatisfaction with the communication and information provided to faculty and staff 

• perceptions of mismanagement, ineptitude, or hidden agendas 

• perceptions of a lack of understanding of the university’s culture and values 

• desire for following through with a vote of non-confidence in the current executive 

In terms of factors contributing to these feelings, the employer’s opening position in bargaining featured prominently. Members also spoke about how the various reorganizations at AU—including the IT reorganization and the near-virtual transition—have been and continue to be handled poorly, which is negatively affecting morale.  

Contract Negotiations 

Having narrowly avoided a strike this spring, MEC queried members’ willingness to have withdrawn their labour. The vast majority of members (88%) indicated were likely to have withdrawn their labour during a strike or lockout, with just 6% saying they were unlikely. This reponse suggests AUFA’s strike threat was a credible one. A credible strike threat enhances the bargaining power of the union. 

Members had mixed views about the final contract that was ratified. The largest chunk of repondents (44%) indicated they were “somewhat satisfied”; neutral and “somewhat dissatisfied” responses each received 22%. Very few members indicated they were either very satisfied (5%) or very dissatisfied (about 7%). This distribution of responses suggests that members are feeling rather ambivalent about the settlement.  

Survey respondents provided a wide variety of comments on the contract language, but the issue most members identified as concerning was (unsurprisingly) the loss of Research and Study Leave for professional members. Comments were broadly aligned with the discussion among members during bargaining, which includes broad, but certainly not unanimous, support for this benefit.  

In addition to the RSL issue, cost of living, inflation, and wages were frequently mentioned. Members broadly felt the cost-of-living adjustment was inadequate. Cost of home office was identified as needing to be addressed. 

Jobs in Athabasca 

As previously reported, a majority of respondents (73%) supported AUFA’s current position that, while no current AUFA member should be forced to re-locate, AU should make an effort to hire a portion of new staff to the Athabasca area. MEC also asked if AUFA should take a position on this issue at all, and a majority (67%) agreed that it should. 

Understanding that, as a union, we are often dealing with multiple priorities, MEC also asked about the relative importance of this issue. There was more disagreement on this question, with only 51% of respondents suggesting it was important that AUFA take a position. That is, there seems to be a portion of members (about 15–25%) who think AUFA should take a position and who agree with AUFA’s current position, but who don’t see this issue as a top concern. There were some identifiable differences when analyzing this question in more detail, so it’s worth taking a look at where some of this discrepancy comes from.  

There were some notable differences here when comparing new employees with those who have been at AU for longer. This issue is important to just 31% of employees who have been at AU fewer than 10 years, while 81% of those who have been at AU more than 20 years said this issue was important to them. 

It is also worth noting that support for AUFA’s position on this issue varies widely between faculties and departments, with the strongest support in FB, FHSS, and the IT department, and weakest support in FHD, FST, and other departments. 

Member comments were diverse. Some members noted that requiring candidates live in Athabasca may narrow the applicant pool unacceptably. Other suggested that candidates could be enticed to live in Athabasca through meaningful incentives.  

Some members felt AU’s primary role is to educate students, not contribute to the economy of Athabasca. Other members note that AU’s location was chosen for economic development purposes and there is no necessary conflict between providing online education while having a portion of jobs located in the Athabasca area. 

Other members were concerned that successive Boards and executives had mishandled this issue (primarily by ignoring it) and that the government was intervening due to political pressure. Some members suggested that the university executive should be expected to model a commitment to Athabasca by living in the Athabasca area, at least part of the time. Others suggested rethinking this issue in order to take advantage of the possibilities a rural campus offers.  

While a lot has happened since this survey was conducted in June, the AUFA executive’s open letter points to several ways in which this issue might be resolved in a constructive and mutually beneficial way.  

Netskope and Privacy 

Members were strongly in favour of AUFA taking steps to protect their privacy after AU installed surveillance software called Netskope on member computers without forewarning or data governance. 

Members’ comments provide many insights about their concerns with this program being used on their work computers, with some common themes: 

• It constitutes a breach of privacy. Members feel concerned about this being a breach to their right to privacy, confidentiality, and security in the workplace. 

• It creates a culture of mistrust between workers and the employer, as they feel not trusted and feel spied and surveilled by the employer. 

• Lack of transparency. Members manifested being concerned about not being properly informed on the reasons why this program is being used, about the data that is being collected, and about the implications that this may have for their privacy in the workplace. 

• It jeopardizes research participants’ right to security, anonymity, and confidentiality. Members who manage and storage research data collected among vulnerable populations (including Indigenous, racialized, and those with precarious legal status) think that the tracking of this information jeopardizes the security of research participants and their right to confidentiality and privacy, making researchers to incur in violations of research protocols. 

• Lack of informed consent. Members feel concerned about the fact that the decision to install a program to collects information was made on a top-down manner, without previous consultation, proper notice, or consent. 

• Insecurity in the workplace. Members fear that the information that is being collected can be used to punish those engaged in disputes with the employer. 

• Threat to safety. Members feel unsafe in the workplace, as they have no clear understanding of what type of information is being tracked and collected, and as they have no clear understanding if this information includes family/personal information. 

• It affects productivity and morale, as the feelings of being spied “all the time” discourages engagement with the job. It also discourages the search of information that can be seen as “suspicious” from the point of view of the employer. 

• There are no clear policies and rules governing the use of this software in the workplace. 

The AUFA executive is following up with the employer about the use of this software and the timelines for a privacy impact assessment, but have so far received no new information.  

The survey also asked members about their use of the AUFA website. This feedback has been shared with the communications committee and will help inform future work to improve the website for members.  

MEC extends its thanks to its volunteer callers as well as the members who took the time to answer the survey. The next MEC survey is planned for this fall. If you would like to be volunteer to help with survey calls, please email engagement@aufa.ca. 

Rhiannon Rutherford 

AUFA President

AU’s COVID protocols may not comply with OHS Act

On March 19, 2022, AU’s COVID-19 Planning Committee announced changes to the university’s COVID protocols. While most staff are required to continue to work from home, staff who permitted to be on campus are now no longer required to wear masks.  

A number of AUFA members questioned the logic of this change. Essentially, how can COVID be both dangerous enough to warrant working from home and not dangerous enough to require mandatory masking when on campus?

This blog post outlines AUFA’s investigation to date, sets out our assessment of whether this policy change is compliant with the province’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, and asks members how they would like AUFA to proceed.

Background

By late 2021, AU’s COVID-19 protocol required almost all staff to work from home. If staff needed to be on campus, they would require special permission to do so, to be vaccinated and to wear a mask while on site. 

In March 2022, with no consultation with AU’s unions or the Joint Health and Safety Committee, AU’s COVID committee eliminated mandatory masking. The elimination of mandatory masking was a surprising change, given that COVID-19 is primarily spread through the air, via both droplets and aerosols. 

Under Alberta’s OHS legislation, AU is required to conduct an assessment of the hazard posed by COVID in the workplace, as well as institute controls to eliminate or otherwise reduce the risk posed by COVID to staff members. You can review AU’s most recent COVID hazard assessment here.

AU General Hazard Assessment COVID-19 AU Main Feb. 2022.pdf

AU’s COVID Control Strategy

AU has implemented a series of controls designed to reduce the risk of workplace infection among staff. As noted above, the primary control being used is directing staff to work from home. This control eliminates work-related exposure to COVID for those who work from home.

This control does not protect staff members who must regularly or occasionally work on campus. The OHS Act and Code requires AU to implement additional controls to protect these staff members. AU’s on-campus controls presently include:

Vaccination: AU’s Vaccination Policy and Procedure requires workers prove they have received two doses of an approved vaccine to be onsite. The logic here is that a vaccinated worker is less likely to have COVID (and thus less likely bring it into the workplace) and is less likely to contract COVID during a workplace exposure. 

Vaccination does not, however fully control the risk of COVID for those working onsite. The emerging evidence is that two doses of vaccine is not effective at preventing COVID inflection. Further, the effectiveness of vaccination appears to wane over time and AU does not require staff to have a booster shot. Essentially, vaccinated staff can still have, transmit, and acquire COVID in the workplace. This suggests the effectiveness of AU’s vaccination control is moderate and declining over time.

Cleaning: AU has implemented enhanced cleaning protocols in the workplace. This control is intended to remove the virus from surfaces and thus prevent surface transmission of the virus. Cleaning does not control the risk of droplet or aerosol transmission.

Social Distancing: AU recommends staff maintain a distance of six feet from one another in the workplace. Distancing reduces the risk of droplet transmission but does not control spread through aerosols. Aerosols can stay in the air for hours and spread throughout a workspace.

Symptom Exclusion: AU requires staff members who are exhibiting symptoms consistent with COVID to stay out of the workplace. Workplace exclusion is intended to reduce staff exposure to the virus. This control is of limited effectiveness because some COVID positive workers do not exhibit symptoms at all. COVID is also contagious prior to someone exhibiting symptoms. 

Analysis

To summarize, AU’s present control strategies and their effectiveness for workers who work on-site are as follows:

• Working from home: Not applicable.

• Vaccination: Moderate and diminishing

• Cleaning: Low

• Social Distancing: Low

• Symptom Exclusion: Low

An effective control for staff who work onsite is wearing a mask. Wearing a mask dramatically reduces transmission of the virus. 

Section 3(1) of the OHS Act requires “Every employer shall ensure, as far as it is reasonably practicable for the employer to do so, (a) the health, safety and welfare of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer”. 

Mandatory masking in the workplace is a control that is reasonably practicable for AU to implement, entailing little cost and having little to no operational impact. 

In May, AUFA provided this analysis of the effectiveness of AU’s March 2022 COVID protocols to AU’s COVID Planning Committee and asked the committee to reinstitute mandatory masking. The committee declined this request:

The COVID-19 Planning Committee met to review yours and AUFA’s concerns and to discuss AU’s COVID-19 progress forward.  The committee identified that throughout COVID-19 it is has always remained cautious toward the lessening of COVID-19 restrictions and therefore did not take the removal of it’s [sic] masking protocols lightly.  The committee appreciates AUFA’s concern on this matter but continues to feel that the controls remaining in place were adequate to control the COVID-19 hazard for those working on site.  

Moving forward, the committee will be continuing to recommend adjustment of AU’s controls based on continued assessment of the hazard and with continued guidance from Government Agencies as well as other resources as it works toward reopening its place-based work sites.

Next steps

AUFA’s OHS representatives are seeking member input about how to proceed with this issue. Essentially there are two options:

1. Take no action: AUFA can decide not to pursue this matter any further. This means that staff members who regularly or periodically work onsite will experience an increased risk of contracting COVID. These staff members can, in part, reduce this risk by choosing to wear a mask.

2. File an OHS complaint: AU’s unwillingness to require mandatory masking appears to violate AU’s obligations to take all reasonably practicable steps to control the hazard posed by COVID 19 for AU employees who must be onsite.

The anonymous survey below gives you the opportunity to provide direction to AUFA’s OHS representatives.

Rhiannon Rutherford and Bob Barnetson

AUFA OHS Representatives

Your Turn

Upcoming AUFA Elections

Elections for the AUFA Executive and committees will take place at the upcoming Spring General Meeting on Tuesday, May 31, 1:30–4:00pm MST. This blog post outlines the positions that will be elected and highlights other ways to get involved in AUFA.  

Nominations for all elected positions will be open until the final call during the Spring General Meeting (that is, individuals can be nominated from the floor during the meeting). However, if you would like to nominate yourself (for any position) in advance and have a candidate statement included in the meeting package, please send this to Brenda Skayman by end of day Friday, May 20.  

Executive 

The AUFA Executive includes five officers (President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Secretary, and Past President) and up to nine member representatives (also called constituency representatives). Each of these positions, with the exception of Past President, will be up for election as part of the Spring General Meeting. The one-year term will begin on July 1, 2022, and end on June 30, 2023.  

The time commitment and scope for these positions varies, as there are few rigid requirements in the current AUFA bylaws. In addition to regularly attending AUFA Executive meetings, officers or member representatives may chair or serve on other AUFA committees, attend conferences or meetings of umbrella or allied organizations, or participate in other initiatives undertaken by the AUFA Executive. For example, the incoming AUFA Executive may choose to pursue projects related to the Equity Audit that is currently underway.  

Questions about any of these positions can be directed to Jolene Armstrong, AUFA Past President, who chairs the Nominating Committee.  

In addition, the AUFA Executive includes non-voting positions: the two AUFA staff members (Executive Director and Professional Officer) and the AUFA representative on the AU Board of Governors (who is currently one year into a three-year term).  

Elected Committees 

Also up for election will be several committee positions. The AUFA bylaws state that both the Equity and Social Committees will “normally” consist of five members each, though in previous general meetings the AUFA membership has extended more flexibility to these committees to expand this number. The terms for elected members of these committees will be one year, from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023. For more information, contact the AUFA office to be connected with current committee members.  

As well, there are two committees outlined in the collective agreement that will be up for election this year, each with two-year terms (from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2024): 

• Professional appeals: Five non-probationary, full-time professional staff members—three primary members, two alternates. See Article 9.5.10.a in the collective agreement for more.  

• Professional appeals with respect to position evaluation: Five non-probationary, full-time professional staff members—three primary members, two alternates. See Article 9.6.4 in the collective agreement for more. 

There is also an academic appeals committee (Article 9.5.10.b in the collective agreement), but this committee is currently in the middle of a two-year term and will be up for election in 2023. Contact the AUFA office or Jolene Armstrong for more information about these committees.  

Appointed Committees  

There are also a number of committees that are appointed by the AUFA Executive.  

The AUFA Executive is currently seeking interest in serving on the Occupational Health and Safety committee. Two members are required to serve on the single, central joint committee that includes employer representatives as well as representatives from each bargaining unit (AUFA, CUPE, and AUPE). These positions are appointed by the AUFA Executive; contact the AUFA office or current OHS representatives (Rhiannon Rutherford or Bob Barnetson) for more information.  

Other appointed committees include the Grievance, Membership Engagement, and Joint Benefits committees. Contact the AUFA office for more information on these committees.  

Jolene Armstrong 

AUFA Past President 

Chair, Nominating Committee 

Bargaining Update: Tentative Agreement Reached

After another marathon day of mediator-assisted bargaining, AU and AUFA have reached a tentative agreement. Employer concessions contained in this new agreement no doubt reflect AUFA members’ strong rejection Monday of AU’s last ‘final’ offer. As a result, the AUFA bargaining team is recommending members vote to ratify this agreement. 

 AUFA is holding a town hall today at 2:00pm to discuss the substance of the tentative agreement, as well as what AUFA’s next steps might look like. In the meantime, this blog post provides a summary of the tentative settlement’s key items. For reference, the entire tentative agreement is attached below.  

2022 04 07 PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT (Tentaive Agreement) (00160919).pdf

The agreement uses the mediator’s report as the basis for most of the agreement. Most items in that report remain unchanged, including: 

• Cost-of-living-adjustment:  

  • The Government-mandated COLA increase of 1.25% (April 1, 2023), 1.5% (December 1, 2023) and an increase of 0.5% (retroactive to December 1, 2023) contingent on provincial gainsharing formula remains unchanged. This 3.25% COLA increase over the life of the contract appears to be pattern across most of the Alberta public sector. 

• Working-from-home allowance payments:  

  • Anyone who has not received the full $2000 for home office start-up will receive a ‘top up’ to make up the full $2000;  

  • Home-based staff with six years of service (and who received $2000 upon hiring) will receive an additional taxable $800 immediately. 

  • All AUFA members will receive an increase to their monthly allowance for internet and other office-related expenses from what it had been (roughly $61 per month for academics and roughly $50 per month for professionals) to $35 biweekly. 

• Joint committee to study Article 3: Academic Promotion and Tenure 

• Improvements to Compassionate Care Leave  

• Improvements to Occupational Health and Safety language 

• Language to include Joint Equity Committee in development of EDI framework and pay equity review 

• Withdrawal of employers’ outstanding concession demands 

The main changes in the tentative agreement relate to Research and Study Leave (RSL) benefits for Professional members. The proposed agreement removes Professionals’ eligibility for RSL going forward, with the following conditions: 

• No RSL days will be accrued going forward. New hires will not be eligible for RSL. Approved RSL leaves will be honoured. 

• Professionals will earn 30 days professional development leave per year (up from 21). Twenty-one days can be accrued per year to a maximum of 126 days (6 months). 

• Members can apply for leaves up to a maximum of six months. Members will need to apply for leaves longer than 21 days under new language that replicates the current process under RSL Leaves. If denied once, a second application will be given priority and not unreasonably denied. 

• Professionals with more than six months leave accrued will retain that leave, with no deadline on usage. Until their accrual drops below six months, they will only receive 21 PD days per year without accrual.  

• When a professional has fewer than six months RSL accrued, the leave will be converted to PD leave according to the formula in Schedule F and added to their PD bank. 

• Librarians will continue to be eligible for RSL. 

For clarity: in return for giving up RSL leave going forward, professionals will earn an additional 9 days of PD per year and will be able to accrue up to 21 days per year to a maximum of 6 months. Current RSL accruals above 6 months will be retained and others converted with a formula equivalent to receiving 100% pay for RSL leave. 

The bargaining committee recognizes this deal does not provide a full return for professionals on the value of their RSL entitlements. It does, however, provide more than the original mediator’s report in that it retains accrued leave at full value and provides professionals with 9 additional PD days per year going forward. This equates to a value of 3.6% of annual income. 

AUFA’s bargaining team is recommending this deal because we believe it is the best that can be achieved under current circumstances. The provincial government’s secret mandate has seriously undermined the basic integrity of the bargaining process, and severely limited what can, and cannot, be achieved at the table. This is especially true in terms of matters involving money. 

As always, of course, any final decision on whether to accept this tentative agreement rests solely in the hands of AUFA members. This is, after all, your collective agreement, and AUFA’s bargaining committee works for you.  

 On behalf of the Bargaining Committee, 

Jason Foster 

Bargaining Update: Mediator Issues Report

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

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

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

Wages and Allowances 

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

• July 1, 2020: 0% 

• July 1, 2021: 0% 

• July 1, 2022: 0%  

• April 1, 2023: 1.25% 

• December 1, 2023: 1.5% 

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

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

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

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

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

Research and Study Leave (RSL) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Provisions 

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

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

Some recommendations address AUFA concerns in bargaining, including: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote Results and Next Steps 

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

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

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

On behalf of the bargaining committee, 

Jason Foster 

Bargaining Update: AUFA Presents Counter-Proposals

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

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

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

AUFA’s new COLA offer is:

• July 1, 2020: 0%

• July 1, 2021: 0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On behalf of the bargaining committee,

Jason Foster

Chair

Bargaining Update

The AUFA bargaining team met with AU on December 8 for a round of negotiations. Bargaining had also been scheduled for November 30, but was cancelled at the last minute due to a family emergency for one of the AU team members.

Once again, AU refused to provide their monetary proposals. Instead, the parties discussed two employer counter-proposals and one new employer proposal, which took half a day. When AUFA suggested using the afternoon to discuss the employer’s monetary proposals, the employer refused. The employer offered no explanation for withholding its monetary proposal. The day ended early as a result.

The parties did sign off on one proposal. The employer presented a proposal on Article 16 (Other Leaves) to remove gender-based language regarding eligibility for maternity and parental leave. AUFA agrees this is a positive step and agreed to the new language. The parties had earlier agreed in principle to make the entire collective agreement gender neutral and to address that issue later in the process. Due to that prior agreement, this proposal was unnecessary and duplicative. AUFA’s bargaining team suspects this proposal was just a stalling tactic to further delay the employer providing its monetary offer.

AU presented a counteroffer to AUFA’s proposal on Article 25 (Occupational Health and Safety). Essentially, AU is offering to abide by the OHS Act (which it already must do by law). AU’s counter proposal falls far short of what AUFA is looking for. AUFA is seeking to ensure our members’ safety rights are codified in the collective agreement so they cannot be eroded by changes in legislation. (The UCP recently made changes to OHS legislation that has reduced members’ safety rights.)

AU also amended its original proposal on Article 4, which deals with appointment, probation, performance of duties, and promotion for professionals. The new proposal makes a few tweaks to their first offer, but leaves intact its core trade-off of reducing the probationary period to one year in exchange for a series of concessions, including removing the probation review process and the right to appeal position classification decisions through the collective agreement and giving the employer the right to dismiss anyone on probation at any time for any reason. A shorter probationary period benefits AUFA members but AU’s changes would make the probationary process unfair.

AUFA had offered 11 dates that it was available to bargain in January, but AU only agreed to January 21 and 31. In addition to growing frustration at the lack of AU’s full opening offer (after 8 months of bargaining), AUFA is concerned that the employer’s unwillingness to provide bargaining dates is a further effort by AU to avoid concluding bargaining in a timely manner.

If bargaining reaches impasse, the next step will be formal mediation. If mediation is unsuccessful, then AUFA will need to hold a strike vote by the membership. The exact timing of any strike vote is contingent upon too many factors to provide a firmer date than the spring, but the Job Action Committee has been instructed to be ready to strike as early as March 15.

Jason Foster

Chair, AUFA Bargaining Committee