Outrage at the Bargaining Table: Our Employer Refuses to Commit to Equity

The Stonewall Riots of June 28, 1969

The following blog post covers the past two bargaining dates, October 20th following the most recent one of October 28th. Last night the Government of Alberta invoked the notwithstanding clause to force striking teachers back to work, and to accept the government’s last, unacceptable offer. AUFA’s bargaining team wore red in solidarity with Albertan teachers.

Very early into bargaining, we opened discussion on Article 26 which discusses equity principles, and equity in employment.  The article currently states that both parties agree to cooperate in the identification and removal of barriers to the recruitment, selection, and hiring of various marginalized groups. However, this article currently does not mention gender or sexuality.  

Considering the current attacks from the Government of Alberta on trans youth and anti-EDI initiatives in American universities, AUFA knew it vital that the collective agreement include 2SLBGTQ+ people in this employment equity article. This would ensure protections against any discriminatory legislation from the Government of Alberta mandating who the university can and cannot hire. AU repeatedly stated they saw no reason to include this language, while clarifying their position was not due to a government mandate.

This refusal is not just disappointing; it is an act of harm and exclusion. Our bargaining team recognized this a clear and directed message that this employer will not have their backs if the province attacks them. A member of the bargaining team, who is also queer, was directly harmed by this message. She was understandably outraged and heartbroken and told the employer’s bargaining team through tears to “go fuck themselves”.  

It sends a dangerous message to our members: that the institution does not prioritize the fundamental rights and well-being of its community members. In a province with evolving legislation and a need for clear policy, leaving these critical protections out of the governing document for our workplace is unacceptable and frankly, negligent.

Our collective agreement should be a document that reflects the best values of a diverse and dynamic learning environment. Including specific, robust language is not an "optional extra"; it is a baseline necessity for fairness, safety, and respect. 

To our employer: Equity is non-negotiable. We will not apologize or agree to a contract that implicitly accepts the status quo of exclusion. Our fight for a fair contract is a fight for a campus where everyone is affirmed and protected. 

AUFA’s bargaining team also presented an estoppel, a legal notice that a past practice may no longer continue. We have received a legal opinion that the practice of cutting off benefits at the age of 70 is discriminatory, and that this must be resolved in bargaining.  

On October 20th, AUFA found out what AU is interested in 

On October 20, AUFA and the University met for another day of bargaining. In the spirit of continuing to work toward a fair agreement, AUFA’s bargaining team presented revisions to our monetary proposals with a renewed focus on the top priorities identified by membership. Discussions also focused on member concerns regarding forced relocation and covert surveillance.  

AU Is Interested in the Ability to Forcibly Relocate Members  

AUFA proposed new language which would prevent the employer from changing the duties of a staff member in a way that would require them to relocate. The employer then argued how hard it was to hire to the Athabasca location, implying this is why they need the right to relocate staff. This is extremely troubling considering per the Tyee, Alex Clark blocked the incentive program for Athabasca hires, the University has engaged in no serious local hiring initiatives beyond forcing new library hires to move to Athabasca at great personal cost, and make it difficult for staff local to Athabasca to acquire private office spaces. Instead of investing in local hires, AU would rather forcibly relocate AUFA members against their will. AUFA remains firm that relocation decisions must respect members’ rights and personal circumstances.  

AU Is Interested in Maintaining Unreasonable Workloads for Members 

When it comes to work-life balance at AU, AUFA has heard members loud and clear: there is none. It’s no secret that AUFA members have been burdened with what seems like perpetually increasing workloads as AU has failed repeatedly to adequately staff the institution while simultaneously taking on numerous high-effort, large-scale projects. 

AU has made it clear at the bargaining table that they will not support expansions to appeals language to equip members with the right to challenge unfair workload assignments. Taking into consideration the diverse work of members and the continued stonewalling from the AU Bargaining team regarding this pressing issue, AUFA proposed an amendment to the collective agreement that would define an AUFA staff member’s workload as: 

The duties and responsibilities negotiated between a Staff Member and a Supervisor shall not normally require the Staff Member to work hours in excess of the standard University work week. 

This change shifts the scale of determining workload from an annual workload to something in alignment with the AU’s 35-hour work week. AU wants to continue the status quo of continuing to increase its workload demands on members. 

AU Is Interested in Secretly Monitoring Members’ Use of AU Devices 

In an earlier proposal, AUFA introduced language aimed at addressing the growing role of artificial intelligence and digital monitoring in the workplace. Following initial discussions, AUFA revised the proposal to narrow the focus specifically to covert surveillance used for performance management. The revised letter on surveillance was sent to AU for review.  

After requesting additional time to review, AU provided a reply at the October 20th session. The University expressed concerns about the language, particularly the request that members be made aware of any surveillance technology used on their computers and that statuses in communication applications such as Microsoft Teams should not be used as a performance management metric. AU argued that it would be impossible for a supervisor to approach an employee about failures to meet service standards while simultaneously acknowledging that they do not currently actively monitor Teams statuses.   

AU provided a comparison point wherein they felt that the “Away” status on Teams is equivalent to walking by someone’s office and routinely seeing them absent. When asked if they would use someone’s physical presence in the office as a reason to issue a discipline even if the team member is meeting all performance expectations, they said they would. 

Despite having several weeks to prepare a response, AU indicated they are not interested in signing language that would protect members from covert surveillance, citing existing IT procedures and university policies as sufficient. AUFA disagrees and maintains that these procedures do not adequately safeguard members’ privacy or academic freedom. 

AU Is Interested in Wasting Our Time 

At the October 8th session, AUFA clearly stated our expectation for a monetary offer in alignment with the standards set by other public unions and committed to providing a counteroffer to help move bargaining forward. After AUFA presented its revised monetary proposal, the University did not provide a response. The October 23rd bargaining date was cancelled by both parties when there was no response to our offer and were also surprised when they indicated they would also not have one for October 28th. At the conclusion of bargaining on Oct 28th, they also stated that while they would strive to have monetary for November 12th, they weren’t in a position to confirm that they would have one. When we pressed the issue, they said they need movement on other articles first. They promise, and then when we acquiesce to signing off articles for example where nothing was proposed, there becomes yet another reason as to why they cannot possibly provide a monetary counter. The goalposts are continually moving. 

AUFA continues to approach negotiations with transparency and good faith. AUFA is still no closer to securing a deal for members that respects our rights and acknowledges our current financial realities. 

Watch for an upcoming email surrounding the ATA strike and the province’s use of the notwithstanding clause.