Bargaining Update: AU finally tables opening offer

The parties met to bargain on January 21. After months of pressure from AUFA, AU finally presented their monetary proposals. This post will outline the major items in their proposals and offer an analysis. You can find a copy of the employer’s full monetary offer here.

Their proposals can be grouped into two categories. First, they offer some general monetary items. These include:

  • A four-year agreement, expiring June 30, 2024

  • No cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) over the life of the contract (0%, 0%, 0%, 0%)

  • Changes to the probation and promotion rules and process (not fully specified at this time)

  • Restricting the right to appeal merit increment decisions to academic staff members only

The second group of proposals include sweeping changes to Research and Study Leave:

  • Eliminating the right of professional staff to take research and study leave (existing banked days would be honoured)

  • Renaming research and study leave to “sabbatical”

  • Reduce academic staff’s remuneration while on research and study leave to 90% of salary

  • Increase the time before eligibility for research and study leave from three years to six years

  • Require that research and study leave be for a 12-month period only and capping accrual to a maximum of 12-months

  • Require that upon completion of research and study leave, staff members must “present” outcomes to the university community

  • Require staff members returning from research and study leave to commit to remaining in the employment of AU for a period of time equal to the leave or else repay salary paid during the leave (proportionate to the time not worked)

  • Make approval of research and study leave conditional to “operational requirements”

There are a number of other minor and ancillary changes which won’t be discussed in this post. In addition to receiving AU’s proposals, AUFA presented a counter-proposal on Article 8 (Grievance Procedure), but the parties did not discuss it. An analysis of the key items of AU’s proposals will be offered below.

Zero Wage Increase

AU is proposing that AUFA members take another four years without a COLA increase. This proposal would mean AUFA members would go seven consecutive years with no COLA increase. For context, Statistics Canada reports that inflation was 4.8% in 2021. Notably, the offer is below where many other public sector agreements are landing regarding wages. In their presentation, AU indicated that they could have proposed rollbacks but chose not to, implying that AUFA members should be thankful.

The AU team asserted that AU is in a difficult financial situation at the moment. The parties have not yet discussed the wage proposal, but the AUFA team will express skepticism at this claim when the opportunity arises. AU has been mostly spared from government cutbacks compared to other institutions in the province. While enrollments are currently down, they are down from record highs during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Plus, AU has a track record of mid-year reports of deficits only to come out at the end of the fiscal year with surpluses.

That AU’s opening proposal is significantly lower than agreements elsewhere suggests to the AUFA team that AU’s offer is not reflective of the current provincial government secret mandate and they are seeking additional sacrifices from AUFA members. AUFA will be offering a counter-proposal soon.

Changes to Research and Study Leave

AU proposes sweeping changes to research and study leave, which they propose be re-named to sabbatical. By far, the most significant change is to remove from professionals the right to take research and study leave. This proposal is a continuation of their persistent attacks against AUFA’s professional members. In this bargaining round, AU is proposing to revamp professionals’ promotion and performance review process, remove professional freedom from the agreement, and lower the requirement for laying off professionals. On Friday, AU added to this list removing professionals’ right to appeal not receiving a merit increment.

During bargaining, AU’s team has regularly diminished professionals’ role at AU. AU’s bargaining lead, external lawyer Chantel Kassongo, described professionals’ rights in the collective agreement as “outliers”. They believe that professionals at AU do not deserve research and study leave, professional freedom, or layoff protection. The AUFA bargaining team will continue to defend our professional members against this attack.

AU’s proposed changes also negatively impact academics. Academic staff on leave will only receive 90% of their regular salary, a significant pay cut. AU justifies this by claiming it is an attempt to “incentivize” academics to seek out external funding for their leaves. This claim conveniently forgets that most funding agencies forbid applicants from collecting salary from their grant. Unless AUFA members were to commit fraud, this proposal is simply another salary cut.

Other changes will require AUFA members to wait longer (six years) for each sabbatical, limit the accrual of sabbatical leave, and remove the flexibility of determining the length of sabbatical. The new reporting and return-to-service requirements also place new, unnecessary burdens on members.

Academic Promotion and Tenure

AU also presented a suggestion regarding the reform of academic promotion and tenure (Article 3). They did not present specific language, but instead offered an overview of a possible direction for change. The parties had a productive discussion about the ramifications of such a suggestion.

AU suggested creating a “Faculty Evaluation Committee” responsible for handling probation and promotion applications, and possibly also handle merit increment and research and study leave decisions. This would centralize many of the decisions that currently take place in a decentralized fashion. AU argues it would also make it easier to implement consistent standards. AUFA raised concerns about how a central process might affect equity and recognition of diverse approaches to research and publishing.

Also, they presented the possibility of merging the tenure and promotion processes for assistant professors (i.e., requiring assistant professors to apply for both at the same time). At present, most assistant professors are able apply for early promotion, which also confers tenure. The AUFA bargaining team sees both pros and cons to such a reform. Finally, AU floated granting tenure to newly hired full professors at the time of hire.

The discussion was wide-ranging and AUFA team members asked many questions and raised concerns, including how the proposal might affect issues of equity. The discussion was limited by the lack of detail provided – the AU team was not in a position to answer many questions and, with issues such as this, the devil can lies in the details. The next step will be for AU to table specific language regarding their proposal.

The AUFA bargaining team recognizes issues related to tenure and promotion of academic members are complex and that AUFA members may hold diverse views about how the process should be structured. We also recognize that the lack of detail to date makes it difficult to offer a clear assessment. Members are welcome to offer their feedback on this matter.

The parties meet again on January 31. As always the AUFA bargaining team will keep working to find a fair deal for AUFA members.

Jason Foster

Chair, Bargaining Committee

Michael Voaklandermonetary, research and study leave, salary, inflation, tenure, bargaining