Board Proposal to Change Article 9: Appeals

Summary

AU is proposing the following changes to the appeal process:

1. Professional staff would no longer be able to appeal the extension or termination of their probationary period (but termination could be grieved).

2. An ad hoc, three-person panel would replace the Professional Appeal Committee.

3. Professional members would have no input to the Professional Appeal Committee and the committee may contain no professional members.

4. The university would select the majority of members on the Academic Appeal Committee.

5. Appellants (professional and academic) would lose their right to have one of the panelists replaced. The AU-appointed chair would gain the power to replace any panelist.

6. Non-voting representatives from HR and AUFA would be removed from the committees.

Current Process

AUFA members can appeal certain decisions to appeal bodies. There are, on average, fewer than 5 appeals per year. Appellants are successful in the majority of appeals.

Professionals can appeal salary increment denials and any extension or termination of their probationary period to a Professional Appeal Committee.

Academics can appeal salary increment denials, termination of their probationary period, and refusal of a promotion to an Academic Appeal committee.

The Board’s Proposed Changes

AU has proposed eliminating the ability to professional staff to appeal the extension or termination of their probationary period.

Elsewhere in its proposal, AU has indicated the termination of a professional probationary period could be grieved. Moving appeals of the termination of a probationary period from the internal appeal process to the external grievance process has two effects.

First, it will increase the cost of each appeal by about $20,000 for both AU and AUFA, as appeal would go in front of an arbitrator. Second, it will delay the resolution of an appeal by as much as a year. Since no AUFA member could wait a year without salary for a job, this proposal renders the right to appeal the termination of a probationary appointment meaningless.

How Is the Professional Appeal Committee constituted?

A seven-person panel hears a professional appeal. The panel comprises 4 voting members plus a non-voting Chair (appointed by AU) and non-voting representatives from AUFA and HR.

Three voting members are drawn from a pool of five professional staff members elected by the professional staff every two years. One voting member is drawn from a pool of three professional staff appointed by AU. The appellant has the right to have one of the panelists replaced.

What change has AU proposed?

AU proposes a three-person panel hear professional appeals. The panel would comprise one person chosen by AU, one person chosen by AUFA, and a jointly appointed chair.

This change eliminates the right of professional staff to elect AUFA panelists. Further, under AU’s proposal, none of these appointees would necessarily be professional staff members.

Practically, this proposal also gives AU control over the majority of the appointees. While the chair would be jointly agreed upon by AU and AUFA, AU has no interest in an appeal of its decision proceeding. Consequently, what AUFA currently sees with joint appointments is that AU stalls the appointment of a chair until AUFA agrees (in order to move the appeal forward) to an employer-friendly chair.

The appellant would also lose the right to have one of the panelists replaced. The chair would gain the power to replace any panelist that, in the chair’s opinion, shows bias. Under this proposal, AU could use the pretext of “bias” to remove panelists who speak in favour of the appeal.

This change also eliminates non-voting representatives from HR and AUFA. Non-voting representatives can presently participate in discussion (often interjecting important policy information) as well as observing the process for irregularities.

There is no clear rationale for reducing the size of the panel, eliminating the election of members, or eliminating AUFA and HR observers. The current process is both quick and inexpensive.

How is the Academic Appeal Committee constituted?

A seven-person panel hears an academic appeal. The panel comprises 4 voting members plus a non-voting Chair (appointed by AU) and non-voting representatives from AUFA and HR.

Three voting members are drawn from a pool of five academic staff members elected by the academic staff every two years. One voting member is drawn from a pool of three academic staff appointed by the AU. The appellant has the right to have one of the panelists replaced.

What change has AU proposed?

AU proposing establishing a 12-person pool of permanent academic staff (three from each faculty) elected by the academics of each faculty. Each academic appeal would be heard by a seven-member panel comprising:

1. The provost (or designate) as chair

2. Three academics selected by the Provost from the pool, but not from the appellant’s faculty.

3. Two academics jointly selected by AU and AUFA from the pool, but not from the appellant’s faculty.

4. One academic jointly selected by AU and AUFA from the pool and from the appellant’s faculty.

This change allows the employer to control the majority of the appointments to each panel. This creates a situation whereby the employer could stack a panel against an appellant.

The appellant would lose the right to have one of the panelists replaced. The chair would gain the power to replace any panelist that, in the chair’s opinion, shows bias. Under this proposal, AU could use the pretext of “bias” to remove panelists who speak in favour of the appeal.

The change also eliminates non-voting representatives from HR and AUFA. Non-voting representatives can presently participate in discussion (often interjecting important policy information) as well as observing the process for irregularities.

There is no clear rationale for altering the election process, increasing the employer’s control over panel composition, or eliminating AUFA and HR observers. The current process is both quick and inexpensive.

Opinion Poll Results