At 2:00 PM on Friday, June 28, 2024, the AUFA bargaining team met with AU’s bargaining team to exchange opening proposals.
The AUFA bargaining team members in attendance were Eloy Rivas-Sanchez (co-lead negotiator and Elected Bargaining Lead), Jessica Muller (co-lead negotiator), Regan Hack, Jennifer Rempel, Bangaly Kaba, Corina Dransutavicius, and Richard Schamehorn. AU’s bargaining team consisted of Wally Gloeckler (lead negotiator), Bryce Clarke, Manijeh Mannani, Britney Ingram, and Priscilla Campeau. Members of AUFA’s bargaining team elected to call in via Microsoft Teams while members of AU’s bargaining met partially in-person with one member calling in.
In our email exchanges prior to the meeting, AUFA stated that we would share our proposal as approved by members at the recent Spring AGM, in its entirety; both monetary and non-monetary items would be included. We also stated that we expected the same in return from AU’s bargaining team. Monetary items vitally include the proposed salary increase for the membership.
As in the rounds of bargaining in 2022 and 2018, AU declined to provide their full proposal, instead opting to only provide what they deemed their “non-monetary” proposal. Continuing this pattern of withholding information at the outset of bargaining runs in stark contrast to the AU bargaining team’s stated commitment to respect and honesty in the bargaining process. For the AUFA bargaining committee, it will be incredibly difficult to make progress at the table if AU refuses to communicate their monetary proposals.
When we asked why AU was withholding their monetary proposal after the very same policy last round caused so many problems, AU stated that it was the employer’s preference not to discuss any monetary proposals until after all non-monetary items had been addressed and agreed upon by both parties. AU refused to provide a specific date when we could expect their monetary proposal to be presented. Additionally, AU stated that “monetary won’t be easy” and that both parties are likely “far apart on monetary”. Refusal to engage with monetary language until all other items are resolved compromises bargaining as it limits our ability to trade language.
When it became clear that no progress would be made on acquiring the full proposal, AUFA raised the question of identifying future dates for bargaining. AU had previously identified a desire to conduct bargaining sessions in a hybrid manner. AUFA formed its bargaining team on the understanding that we could meet virtually as this is an online university which conducts all its meetings online. We were happy to support AU’s team to gather in person if they so wished and meet them online to conduct meetings in that way. This is in alignment with the flexible, choice-based hybrid work model that has been presented to AU staff repeatedly since the end of the near-virtual strategy.
As stated in an email from Alex Clark to staff on December 8th, 2023:
“What this will not be about is enforcing the mandates that characterized our approaches of the past. Instead, it will be about promoting choice for our team members, where possible, of where and how we meaningfully come to work together to advance AU’s mission.”
To our shock, AU's bargaining team refused to meet unless those meetings met their definition of “hybrid” which they indicated was at least one member of AUFA’s bargaining team physically present in the same room as AU’s bargaining team. AU’s request that we send one member of our bargaining team to be outnumbered in a room to meet an arbitrary definition of “hybrid” is alarming.
AU’s bargaining team position on this matter is a problem for several reasons. AUFA’s bargaining team is spread out across Alberta and BC. The costs of travel alone would be prohibitively expensive, let alone additional incurred costs like childcare and accommodations or lost work time due to travel. We feel that it is fiscally imprudent to spend unnecessary funds on forcing in-person bargaining sessions. We also raised the matter that for some of our bargaining team members, it will not be possible to bargain in-person. For members who are unable to travel due to childcare concerns, illness, or disability, AU indicated that those members would be welcome to call in to the meeting while the rest of the group met in-person. Hybrid meetings of this nature where part of our team is split and othered due to their familial or disability status is not in alignment with our commitment to equity and inclusion at AUFA.
All this discussion is, of course, side-stepping the fact that how we bargain does not fall under AU’s new hybrid workplace model. When we asked about their reasons for denying us the choice to bargain virtually, AU stated that they wished to support the Athabasca community by holding bargaining physically in the town. They provided no further reasoning of substance.
AU has indicated that while they would “love to have a meeting in July”, the meeting must be “hybrid”. AU has declined to respond to the dates proposed by the AUFA bargaining team until we acquiesce to their demands for in-person bargaining.
Athabasca University is an online university that conducts almost every meeting virtually, all the while emphasizing the word “choice” over where we work. AUFA’s bargaining team volunteered on the understanding extensive travel would not be required for this very difficult job. If we were to follow AU’s request and send a portion of the bargaining team in-person, it would leave them in a room outnumbered by AU executives and create an intimidating power dynamic. This is exclusionary. Any one of our members should have a right to volunteer in AUFA regardless of location, family status, or disability.
We are eager and willing to begin the bargaining process in earnest, but AU’s refusal to provide their entire proposal, or continue bargaining unless AUFA members meet in-person, primarily in Athabasca are substantial barriers to our ability to negotiate. To guide our next steps, we want to hear from you!