On Wednesday, AUFA and AU met to exchange opening offers. Yesterday, we provided AUFA members with an overview of AUFA’s opening proposal. Today, we provide an initial assessment of AU’s opening proposal. Please note that this blog represents AUFA’s first impressions of AU’s offer. Additional analysis of both proposals will be provided in the coming months.
Missing Pieces
The most notable feature of AU’s proposal is that much of it is missing. AU has indicated it will be tabling language on the following topics at a later date:
Article 3: Academic Appointments
Article 6: Salaries and Economic Benefits
Article 13: Professional Development
Article 14: Annual Research Leave
Article 15: Research and Study Leave
Article 16: Other Leaves
Article 26: Equity
Schedule A: Salary Scales
Schedule B: Benefits
Letter on Discretionary Benefits Fund
Letter on Market Supplements
Letter on Overload
AU asserts that it is withholding its proposals on these articles because (1) it wishes to have non-positional conversations about changes in Article 3 and 26, and (2) in the hope that “non-monetary” issues can be resolved before discussing monetary items. AU declined to set a specific date by which it would present its “monetary” proposal.
AUFA’s bargaining team notes that it is difficult to negotiate when the other side refuses to table a full offer. Imagine, for example, negotiating to buy a car when the other side will not tell you anything about the car’s price, model, features or warranty.
Language Rollbacks
The changes that AU has proposed include substantial rollbacks in member rights. You can view AU’s proposal here. While some of these proposals affect all members, they disproportionately target professional members. If AUFA accepted AU’s opening proposals, the major changes would be:
Professional probation (Article 4): The probationary period for professionals would be reduced to 12 months (from 24). AU could terminate probationary professionals at any time with no reason or compensation. Permanent positions would be awarded at the sole discretion of the Executive Officer. There would be no meaningful appeal of denials of permanent positions.
Professional appeals (Articles 4 and 9): Professionals would no longer be able to apply to have their position be re-evaluated when their job duties change.
Term appointments (Article 5): Term appointments would no longer be automatically converted to permanent positions after 5 years. This reverses language won in a grievance and earlier bargaining over AU’s long-standing exploitation of temporary staff. The permissible duration of a term appointment when a program is newly established would be extended to 5 years (from 3)
Discipline (Article 7): All discipline would take effect immediately. Presently, any discipline affecting income (i.e., suspension without pay or termination) is delayed until an appeal is heard. Discipline appeals (which are costly to AU) would be eliminated and discipline would be grievable, the cost of which is shared with AUFA and which take years to resolve. This proposal makes it easier and cheaper for AU to discipline AUFA members.
Grievances (Article 8): Violations of the contract not grieved within 30 days of occurrence would no longer be grievable. Presently there are no deadlines or AUFA to file a grievance. This reflects that (1) often violations are not apparent for long period of time and (2) some violations (such as harassment) take place over a long period of time.
Appeals (Article 9): A single pool of possible members of appeal committees would be established (presently, there are two elected committees). The employer would be able to stack the pool of possible members as well as the membership of any specific committee such that decisions would favour the employer. The chair (i.e., the Provost) would also be able to remove any members whom the chair felt were biased. Essentially, this proposal would diminish the fairness of the current appeal process. It is unclear if professional staff members would be able to serve as appeal committee members.
Discrimination (Article 10): AU proposes eliminating language, creed, political affiliation, physical characteristics, clerical status, place of residence, and personal lifestyle from the list of grounds upon which discrimination is prohibited. AU proposes adding gender identity, gender expression, and source of income as grounds upon which discrimination is prohibited.
Academic and Professional Freedom (Article 11): Professional freedom would be eliminated. Academic freedom would be limited to teaching and research and subject to oversight by AU. Institutional criticism would no be longer protected under academic freedom.
Layoffs (Article 12): Separate provisions for academic and professional staff would be introduced. Academic staff would see their layoff notice reduced. Presently, staff received 12 months of notice (or pay in lieu) plus 1 month of pay per year of service up to 6 months. AU proposes reducing the notice period to 6 months (from 12). If AU decides to payout the notice period, it would be paid out as the value of wages only (with no compensation for the value of forgone benefits). Recall rights would be reduced to 2 years (from 4) and, if a staff member returns to a position at a lower salary, they would not get to keep their old salary.
Professional staff would receive 90 days of notice of layoff and then a variable severance payment of between 2 weeks and 9 month of wages. Under the present system, a professional member with 12 or more years of service would net 18 months of wages plus the value of 12 months of benefits. Under AU’s proposal, this same staff member would receive 12 months of wages. There would be no recall provisions for professionals under AU’s proposal.
Temporary Layoff (new article): AU has proposed new language that would allow AU to temporarily layoff professional staff members for up to 90 days. If the staff member was not recalled and has 3 or more years of service, they would be eligible for a variable severance payment of 1 to 12 months of wages.
Casual language (Article 27): This language would be eliminated. The absence of language would allow AU to hire casual staff without any constraints.
Contracting Out (Letter): This letter would be eliminated. The absence of language would allow AU to contract out AUFA work. AU’s contracting out practices are presently subject to a grievance.
Accommodation (Letter): This letter would be eliminated. Many of these provisions exist in some form in statutory law. But eliminating this letter would mean, when requiring an accommodation, a report from a doctor or mental health professional of our choice would no longer be considered proof of a need for accommodation. This would allow AU to require additional medical examinations.
Spousal Hire (Letter): This letter would be eliminated. The current spousal hire registry would be terminated.
Analysis
It is not possible to provide a comprehensive analysis of AU’s opening position since AU has withheld significant portions of their proposal. Of the portion that we can see, AU is clearly pushing for significant rollbacks in member rights.
This is consistent with their approach to the 2018 round of bargaining and their efforts to de-designate two-thirds of AUFA members last year. This devaluing of AUFA member’s work is likely a factor in ongoing low levels of trust and engagement by staff members.
Given this partial proposal, the Bargaining Committee expects that this round of bargaining will be protracted and difficult. We appreciate your patience as bargaining continues.
AUFA members will need to attach costs to AU’s proposals to pressure the employer to alter their positions. The support that members will provide through activities organized by the Membership Engagement Committee and the Job Action Committee will be important in both making gains at the table and beating back AU’s proposals.
The Bargaining Committee is committed to providing you with timely updates on bargaining. We will also work with the Job Action Committee to provide further analysis of AU’s and AUFA’s proposals.
Jason Foster, Chair
AUFA Bargaining Committee