The most recent AUFA member survey revisited a series of general questions aimed at understanding members’ feelings about their work, workplace, and union. The 163 responses received suggest ambivalence toward AU leadership, continued pressures on salaries and workload, and complex feedback for AUFA volunteers to consider.
Over the past twelve months, there have been 12 disciplinary investigations of AUFA members under Article 7 of the collective agreement. In past years, there were between 1 and 3 such investigations. This seeming increase is largely the result of Human Resources moving from informal processes to more formal ones. Although formal investigations are nerve-wracking, they ensure that investigations follow the rules in our Collective Agreement.
The above chart breaks down status of discipline cases that were active in the past year. Of the twelve cases over this past year, three have resulted in discipline thus far.
Investigation: Article 7.3
When the employer wishes to investigate a potential problem with an AUFA member, they must follow the rules set out in Article 7 to conduct the investigation. It is up to HR to determine what is worthy of investigation or not. If HR wishes to commence an investigation they must:
Inform the AUFA Executive Director.
Inform the member, and ensure they understand their right to union representation.
To conduct the investigation, HR will use either an HR officer, or hire an external contractor. An initial meeting is held to discuss the allegations with the member with a union representative present. The investigator will then normally conduct interviews with affected parties within the workplace and gather evidence to determine what happened.
During the investigative process, Human Resources may elect to place a member on paid leave. This typically occurs only with with more serious allegations. It is important to understand that members subject to this process have not been found guilty of anything, and they are not being “disciplined” (even if the investigation may feel that way). Rather, the employer is investigating a potential problem, and they have to conduct the investigation to find out if the problem is real.
Discipline: Article 7.5
At the conclusion of an investigation, Human Resources will receive a report from the investigator, and decide whether to proceed or not with imposing discipline. If Human Resources determines that corrective discipline is necessary, Article 7.5 allows the employer to do one of the following:
A written warning on the employee’s file.
Denial of certain rights.
Suspension with pay.
Suspension without pay.
Termination with cause.
The employer normally imposes progressive discipline, where initial discipline is a milder form and, if the misbehaviour persists, corrective actions become increasingly severe. If there is a very serious infraction, however, the employer may issue suspension or termination on a first offence.
If the employer decides discipline is not warranted, the investigation concludes without discipline.
Appeal: Article 7.7
Members have a right to request the withdrawal of discipline from the University President. If the President declines (which they have always done), the member can then request an appeal.
AUFA has strong appeal language which sends disciplinary decisions to a panel of three people. AUFA choses one, AU choses the other, and the third is elected by the two panel members. The panel does not have to be internal, allowing either side to choose legal counsel for an appeal. Per our contract, the employer must pay for the panel, which may be extremely expensive for the employer.
Members who were placed on leave during an investigation may, at the employer’s discretion, remain that way until an appeal is heard. The penalties of termination and suspension without pay are held in abeyance until the appeal is complete and a decision rendered. Appeal results that follow process properly are binding.
Analysis
Investigations have been informally referred to as “disciplines” in the past, which can create unnecessary worry for affected members. Discipline only takes place after an investigation, if the employer decides to impose one of the penalties set out in Article 7.5. Most investigations do not result in discipline. It is important to understand that if you are under investigation, you are not being punished by the employer.
AUFA has received several questions from members concerned that disciplinary cases may be disproportionately affecting racialized members. Although we do not have equity data on our membership to compare the cases to the total population, we’ve observed the following:
75% of Article 7 cases affected white members. This is inclusive of both investigations and disciplines.
The remaining 25% were for members who were Black, Indigenous, or people of colour.
Of the three cases that resulted in discipline (one was withdrawn), two of the three affected members are white.
More reports to the membership on cases in the grievance file will be forthcoming with additional contract analysis in the coming months.
Dave Powell
Grievance Lead
AUFA’s bargaining team received a request for changes to the collective agreement around maternity and parental leave benefits (Article 16). Assessing this request required the bargaining team to sort through how these benefits work.
The bargaining team thought it might be useful to share with the membership how maternity and parental leave benefits work. The illustrative diagrams at the bottom of this blog may be easier to understand than the text.
The Labour Relations Code requires AUFA and AU to assess whether any of the work performed by AUFA members constitutes an essential service. If so, AUFA and AU must conclude an essential services agreement (ESA).
In December, AUFA’s executive appointed an ESA Negotiating Committee comprising Bob Barnetson, Susan Cake, Jason Foster, and Richard Roach. This blog post is the first step in consulting AUFA members about an ESA.
On March 28th, AUFA was notified that three AUFA positions were made redundant as a result of restructuring within operational teams. We are also aware of four positions within another bargaining unit that were eliminated. We understand that these seven positions in total are the only reductions.
What is redundancy?
Outside of disciplinary reasons, AUFA members can lose their jobs through either layoff or redundancy. These are similar processes that are both covered under Article 12 of the collective agreement. Layoffs are terminations for financial reasons. To lay off staff, AU must demonstrate to the union that they are financially exigent. Redundancies are eliminations for organizational reasons.
Redundancies follow Article 12.2:
AUFA is informed sixty days in advance. During this time, Human Resources has begun a practice placing the affected member on paid leave immediately and cutting off their system access immediately.
During those sixty days, AUFA and HR are obligated to work collaboratively to seek redeployment or retraining opportunities and try to find a new job for the member.
If this is not successful, the member is served a year’s notice for termination, and then up to six months of severance. HR has always elected to pay out this notice period, which results in a total layoff package of 18 months’ pay.
The member is then placed on a recall list for four years, during which time the member has first right of refusal to new jobs at AU.
Can the employer do this?
The collective agreement allows for redundancies for the following reasons:
GFC discontinues courses, disciplines or programs.
Course enrolment drops to the point where the number of staff should be reconsidered.
Existing courses, disciplines, or programs are reconfigured that changes the type of staff needed.
The University reorganizes, eliminates activities, functions or departments, and as a result the need for the number and type of staff must be re-evaluated.
The contract does not require the employer to prove it has met any of the above criteria. The only way to pursue this information would be arbitration. As it stands, the university can make jobs redundant, and AUFA's only response is to legally respond after the fact.
Analysis
As AU restructures and suffers drops in enrolment, redundancy claims may become more common. But consider how enrolment dropping also drops revenue. So it is hard to know if a redundancy is primarily or exclusively due to the four reasons above. The collective agreement does not rule out mixed reasons, so financial pressures could well be at play.
AU is undergoing major restructuring, which may result in new positions in the future. It is possible, then, that once the restructuring is complete, there would be plenty of work for those in the now eliminated positions to do. However, permanently eliminating these positions saves the university money. We can only speculate as to whether these redundancies are a result of financial pressures surrounding the new fiscal year.
Historically, AU avoided using redundancy language, instead choosing to repurpose existing staff whenever possible. This approach is much kinder, and the fact that it doesn’t seem to have been considered at this time raises questions about whether the decisions were actually financial.
We should be concerned about the use of redundancy, given that the entire IT department was made redundant in 2021. The employer used redundancy language to move members into new positions. That use of redundancy language is pending arbitration.
What is AUFA doing?
The three impacted members have received notification, and we are working to support them through this difficult process. We have shared concerns with AU president Alex Clark. We have received reassurance that these layoffs are isolated decisions and not necessarily a sign of more to come.
AUFA will continue to hold the employer to account as well as try to mitigate the harm done to the affected members. These efforts could include pursuing possible grievances if these layoffs breached the collective agreement.
As more details emerge about the new directives for Athabasca University, AUFA members have raised many questions and concerns. We would like to offer some clarity for members about AUFA’s position and about some of the information shared and claims made so far.
AUFA has had a long-standing position in favour of AU maintaining its presence in Athabasca, which is a region of around 10,000 people north of Edmonton. This position is based on the union’s historical association with the town and the mandate of our members. This position is also based on the notion that the gradual job losses should cease and that a stable, gradually increasing number of positions should be in the town.
However, AUFA has always publicly opposed the notion of forced relocation of staff. Forced relocation would uproot entire families and disrupt lives and obligations. While we cannot know how this situation will eventually be resolved, AUFA will commit to vigorously defending members should any be forced to relocate against their will.
Notably, Advanced Education Minister Demitrios Nicolaides personally assured the last AUFA President that relocations would not take place. This was obviously a false promise, as the latest news suggests that not only would the provincial government require relocations but also support them with additional funds.
So far, we only have the information that has been reported in the media. We urge the AU Board of Governors and administration to provide the full details of both the plan submitted to the government by AU and the most recent directives from the Minister.
Still, with the available information, it seems that the key issue is the requirement that 65% of AU staff work out of Athabasca by 2024/25, which (according to AU’s president) would mean relocating about 500 current staff.
This is, quite frankly, impossible. The Athabasca region simply cannot accommodate 500 new families in such a short amount of time. There is currently a shortage of housing, let alone other infrastructure concerns (schools, doctors, hospitals, etc). The Athabasca campus also does not have enough office spaces. It is unlikely the Minister will build a new building.
Beyond the feasibility, however, even one forced relocation of an AUFA member will be contested fiercely by the union. Anyone who moves to Athabasca should do so voluntarily, whether this is managed upon hiring or as a result of meaningful incentives.
As well, the AU president shared in the media that this metric would be tied to 9% of the grant received by the government. Our understanding is that this would roughly work out to about 3% of the overall budget for the university (as the operating grant is about one third of total income). Without more information, it is difficult to see how this type of cut represents an existential crisis for the university. It is also difficult to understand why the university administration felt the need to fight back so publicly before consulting with those who would be directly affected or even sharing more fulsome details about the directives.
AUFA members are unionized and have a variety of protections under the collective agreement. Although it is premature to explore all potential legal options, the ability for members to simply say ‘no’ is profound, forcing the employer to explore costly legal mechanisms. With 18 months pay at layoff, extremely expensive discipline language (for the employer), and a variety of potential protections under grievance language, it is uncertain if the employer could successfully force the relocation of one member, and impossible to do it with hundreds.
There were a few statements in the August 5 video message from the AU president that seem to be at least somewhat misleading if not wholly disingenuous.
President Scott referred to the 2015 sustainability crisis and suggested that the Imagine strategic plan, along with a “new executive committed to building talented teams” are to be credited with a remarkable turnaround. However, there are many other available explanations and perspectives on this situation.
The crisis in the mid-2010s was a case of a few years of flat student growth coupled with fiscal mismanagement from the university executive. There was also an explosive boom AU went through in the mid-2000s prior to that which suddenly tapered off. In any case, this situation was completely unrelated to the location of most employees. AU is an extremely successful university that grew four times its size since the 1990s with a significant portion of staff located in Athabasca.
AU’s service to students and ability to achieve the major initiatives of the Imagine plan is unrelated to its location. Despite the fanfare of these initiatives, things like moving to a new course platform and relocating IT systems to the cloud are not completely overhauling AU’s basic model and enduring mission to remove barriers to education. These initiatives rely on staff located both in and outside of Athabasca, and this will continue to be the case.
President Scott also claimed that “we love that town.” Yet AUFA members and our colleagues have been raising concerns for years about the lackluster (to say the least) attempts to prioritize hiring to the region. A statement appears on many job ads stating that, all other things equal, applicants willing to move to Athabasca would be prioritized. Yet this statement is relegated to the fine print and not backed up with clear instructions for hiring committees, let alone financial incentives or non-monetary support.
AU has a long history of successfully attracting quality staff to live in Athabasca, and the success of the university to date is an indication this model has worked. Many in Athabasca (and elsewhere in rural locations) feel insulted by the implication that it’s simply not possible to attract the “best and the brightest” to the region, or that current residents aren’t counted in this hypothetical group. If the AU administration really do “love that town,” they should be making more substantial efforts to demonstrate their commitment.
Finally, there has been a conflation of the jobs in Athabasca issue with the near-virtual initiative. That a strong majority of AU staff in Athabasca elected to work from home rather than report to offices in person is complicated by the fact that a truly hybrid option wasn’t on the table, along with other confusing details about the near-virtual plan. AUFA’s support for a maintained and increased presence in Athabasca is independent of whether individuals work from home or report to offices.
AUFA believes that staff should be empowered and have choice and autonomy over how they work. If the government wishes staff to report to offices in Athabasca, the choice to do so should be appealing and include inducements and flexible models such as hybrid work from office and work from home.
We also urge both the AU administration and the province to release, in their entirety, the draft talent management plan submitted by AU, the letter with the Minister's directives, and the new Investment Management Agreement. Without more details, it is difficult to separate the real from the rhetoric.
Rhiannon Rutherford, President
David Powell, Past President
Athabasca University Faculty Association
Last week several AU staff received a notification that software called Netskope was installed on their AU laptops. The extent of the installation is not known completely.
Last week, AU staff received a notification that software called Netskope had been installed on their company laptops. Netskope is a suite of security software, but importantly the software that has been installed is specifically for employee monitoring. “Man in the middle” software such as this is typically for monitoring protection of privacy acts and security requirement for intellectual property. This software is installed on both PCs and Macs.
This is importantly not limited to AU systems. As the software is on a laptop, it means everything on that laptop can be monitored, which includes web traffic, documents and the content of emails in -any- email system whether it is gmail, or my own AUFA email system. Accessing AU systems via a personal computer will not be subject to the same monitoring as Netskope will not be installed on your personal computers.
Although there have been assumptions about employee monitoring at AU for years by staff, this has not been the case. Previously, any access to information such as stored documents or emails has been tightly controlled with no easy access for management or IT staff. By installing software such as this, Netskope tracks traffic from the computer, which allows AU to gather, store, and review any information they so wish.
In this last round of bargaining, our team attempted to get language which would prevent surveillance, which was dismissed by AU as something they’d never consider, going so far as to say “you have rights”.
Our understanding of Netskope is that it can be used to track any activity on AU cloud-hosted systems and monitored websites. There is the possibility this software could be used for far greater surveillance but its extent is not entirely known. Appropriate governance and public documents over its intended purpose is the best way for AU to settle any fears.
We understand that this software does not currently do retroactive searches (such as through the history of your Teams chats) but this is a potential use for it.
We are completely unaware of any attempts to implement appropriate governance of this massive new data collection initiative. FOIP rules indicate that anyone whose data is collected by a public institution should know how it is collected, stored, accessed, and for what purposes. They must then be informed of any changes to the above. Currently there appear to be no rules at all to how this data will be controlled.
This has profound implications for research ethics, as well as for AUFA members whose communications on AU computers contains “for your eyes only” information such as legal opinions, research data, medical information, or any variety of personal information that is passively collected by the employer. There is a long history of AU staff, particularly academics, using AU computers for personal use which is allowed within policy. That personal information is now subject to employer monitoring.
Additionally, this software is used to monitor compliance with AU policy such as workplace behavioural standards or to pursue leaks of sensitive information or IP. Academic research may routinely engage in subject matter which is considered “not safe for work” such as scholarship on sexuality, sex work, pornography, racism, other forms of bigotry, and profanity itself. This could trigger disciplinary investigations into academics doing the jobs they were hired for. There are also profound concerns over equity as LGBQ and 2STNBGC content is often considered inappropriate for workplaces as a form of passive discrimination.
Monitoring staff in any circumstance is a gross violation of reasonable expectation of privacy. Monitoring academics at a research university is a spectacular act of self-sabotage which compromises the very mission of the university. Academic freedom is impossible in a climate of surveillance as all research activity comes under the scrutiny and thus approval of the boss.
AUFA is currently investigating this and will strongly fight for the right to privacy for our members through all means possible. We advise that AUFA members who have had Netskope installed on their work laptops immediately remove any personal information from those computers as well as from any cloud systems controlled by AU such as OneDrive. Please be aware that any confidential, private, and personal information may be subject to data collection by the employer.
It is feasible for the employer to implement such software and implement strict safeguards to ensure that security incidents are caught, but the software is not used to gather or monitor employee behaviour on systems. This would require careful governance and extensive consultation with staff representatives.
There are many unanswered questions about Netskope and its intended use. What we have now is an idea of what has been installed, its intended use, and its potential for further use. We will keep members updated as more information becomes available.
Solidarity,
AUFA President
David Powell
An AUFA academic recently adopted a newborn. Article 16.7 of the collective agreement outlines parental leave benefits for AUFA members who adopt children. These provisions include a three-month period of leave with full pay plus an additional period of unpaid leave. The combined paid and unpaid leaves can total no more than 62 weeks of leave. During the unpaid leave, AU continues to provide benefits and the AUFA member may be entitled to claim Employment insurance (EI) benefits.
In this case, the adoption occurred approximately halfway through the AUFA member’s research and study leave (RSL). The member sought to pause their RSL for a period of six months of parental leave and resume RSL after the parental leave was complete. This is in keeping with past practice and a normal means of accommodation.
AU denied the member’s request to pause their RSL. Instead, AU indicated that if the member wished to take a parental leave, the member could terminate the RSL. This option would derail the member’s research plans and mean waiting at least three years before the member could apply to take another leave. This is a significant matter of equity and discrimination, punishing a member for their family status.
AU has offered little explanation for its refusal to accommodate the member’s parental leave, other than they simply did not have to do it. The paper trail suggests this decision to not accommodate was made within HR, not at the faculty level. The member’s supervisor and Dean had not only approved pausing their RSL, but were extremely supportive of the plan.
AU has an obligation to accommodate an AUFA member’s family status, which includes an obligation to provide care to an infant. AU also has a lengthy history of pausing RSL when members become sick, take maternity leave, or require other forms of leave. Given these obligations, the history of past practice, and the absence of any reason to think the member’s request would cause any undue hardship on AU, AUFA filed a grievance and had warned HR that a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission was being seriously considered.
A guiding principle of labour relations in Canada is that, when workers and unions disagree with an employer’s administration of the collective agreement, they are required to follow the employer’s direction until their grievance or complaint can be resolved. Given the delays common to grievances and human right complaints, this “work now, grieve later” doctrine means workers are basically stuck making due.
Given that, the member did, under protest, decide to continue the RSL until it ends in June and then commence a short parental leave. This is not the arrangement the member wanted, but it was the only option reasonably available to the member.
This arrangement is sub-optimal. It denied the member the opportunity to be with their newborn baby on a full-time basis and bond with them. It also requires the member and the member’s family make unexpected, expensive, and difficult arrangements for childcare during the remaining period of the member’s RSL.
The member asserts that AU’s unwillingness to provide the most basic of accommodations has turned what should be a joyous time into one marked by stress, conflict, and a profound sense that the member has been betrayed by AU when the member was most vulnerable.
This behaviour by AU sits uncomfortably with the university’s i-CARE values that undergird its Imagine plan These values allegedly include:
Integrity: We are guided by ethics, honesty, and fairness in all our actions, engendering trust within our University community.
Adaptability: We are flexible. We respond to the changing needs of our University and its learners with courage and continuous improvement.
Respect: We foster respect by contributing to an environment in which every individual is valued.
Denying a member parental leave for no reason doesn’t engender trust, doesn’t respond to the changing needs of the university staff, and doesn’t show employees that they are valued. This is the latest in a series of large and small attacks on its members that includes but is not limited to:
accidentally terminating market supplements for female nurses with no notice,
trying to roll back contract protections, targeting professional members in particular,
failing to carve two-thirds of AUFA members out of union and then turning to picking members off one-by-one,
accusing a member with a terminally ill spouse of faking their stress leave,
refusing to table a full offer in bargaining for months on end,
implementing a disastrous re-organization of IT,
dissolving a promotion committee without cause, and
permanently moving staff to home offices without a policy or adequate compensation.
AU had reversed the decision to deny pausing the member’s RSL, only after significant pressure from AUFA. Unfortunately, damage had already been inflicted as the member and their family had to scramble to change their plans and incurred significant monetary cost—including loss of pay for the member’s partner. Moreover, the sudden denial made it necessary to look into hiring a nanny—extremely difficult for the new parents—and, to make it all work, the member’s mother-in-law made trips up from Calgary to Edmonton to watch over the new baby. She made the trip every week until it became too unsustainable.
It is unclear if the denial of RSL is the misguided actions of one HR staffer or if, indeed, AU’s i-CARE values are simply a sham. A very real question AU may need to confront very soon is why anyone would want to take a job for such a poorly run and mean-spirited organization.
Happy Mother’s Day from AU, I guess.
Richard Roach, Executive Director
We’d like to hear what you think about AU’s unwillingness to pause a member’s sabbatical while the member was on parental leave. All comments are anonymous. We’ll compile the comments you leave below and provide them to Chief HR boss Charlene Polege.
