AUFA Condemns Employer Disruption and Mismanagement; Calls for Concrete Action

AUFA condemns the Board of Governors’ callous firing of Dr. Scott who lost his wife only weeks ago. The surprise announcement of the termination of former AU President Dr. Peter Scott and the appointment of Dr. Alex Clark to fill this role has left faculty and staff at Athabasca University reeling.  AUFA members have been experiencing callousness and disruption beyond the recent upheavals and actions of the BOG and are growing weary of the cycle of crises facing this institution – a cycle that is taking its toll on staff morale and student enrolment alike. Yet we also remain committed to the university’s open mission and hopeful for some stability and calm so we can focus on our work in service of this mission.  

This blog post will analyze how we got here and outline a path forward. Our core message to the university administration and the Board of Governors is that, to right this ship, faculty and staff need to lead the way.  

Problematic Process 

The sudden announcement of a change in presidents left many wondering, how did this happen? While the full story likely won’t ever be revealed, it is clear from multiple (and in some cases, conflicting) media reports that the process by which this decision was made was extremely problematic, including the callous way in which Dr. Scott was “released.” It is difficult not to see the roots of this decision in the heavy-handed approach to AU overhauling board membership and issuing institutional directives adopted by the Minister of Advanced Education Demetrios Nicolaides since last March.  

AUFA is aligned with the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations (CAFA) and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) in calling for all presidential searches at post-secondary institutions to be as open and transparent as possible. Instead of being surprised by the announcement of a new leader selected through a completely closed and secretive process, faculty, staff, students, and the broader community should have meaningful exposure to potential candidates and an opportunity to provide input to the selection process.  

While we remain critical of the process that got us to this point, AUFA calls on Dr. Clark to provide very different leadership than what we’ve experienced over the last several years – one that is more responsive and prioritizes stability and employee well-being over unproductive disruption.  

“Disharmony”  

The Board Chair referenced “staff strife and disharmony” as a key factor motivating this decision. We might characterize the situation slightly differently, but it does point to the worsening of both morale and working conditions over the past several years. AUFA members have weathered blatant union-busting, aggressive bargaining, continuous and cumulative breaches of our rights under the collective agreement, and a generally callous disregard for our well-being. AUFA staff and volunteers can scarcely keep up with the onslaught of contract violations, disciplines, and other issues facing our colleagues.  

While AUFA as a union is occasionally vilified by university leaders or painted as the source of problems, the reality is that we simply would not have to fight so much if university leadership, particularly decision makers within Human Resources, demonstrated even the slightest bit more care and regard for employee well-being. Well-intentioned, good faith efforts to raise concerns about employee wellness are routinely ignored or rejected.  

AUFA is committed to doing its part to meet in good faith and attempt to resolve current, long-standing, and emergent issues directly with the employer and to reduce the number of cases that are escalated to arbitration at the labour board. We call on the university administration to come to the table with the same good faith.  

Words and Actions  

One of the most common complaints we have heard from AUFA members over several years of regular surveys and other engagement efforts is the disconnect between the rhetoric of university leadership and their concrete actions. This has been experienced most acutely in the university’s so-called commitment to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI).  

Despite proclamations about intentions to champion EDI, including signing the Scarborough Charter, previous initiatives left much to be desired. We still are waiting for a university-wide plan and policy, supported by appropriate personnel and overseen by a body independent from HR, for fostering an equitable, diverse, and inclusive work environment and articulating institutional accountabilities. While we wait, faculty, staff, and students who are experiencing systematic forms of gender, sex, racial, anti-Indigenous, and anti-Black harassment are left with little recourse.  

AU’s actions and rhetoric on EDI need to come into closer alignment – urgently, not pushed to some distant future. AUFA calls on the university administration to prioritize the establishment of an independent Equity Office that has both an appropriate mandate and sufficient resources to be effective.  

Mismanagement 

Over at least the past year AUFA members and our colleagues have been grappling with increasingly unsustainable workloads and worsening working conditions, making it more and more difficult to maintain the services and quality of courses that students deserve and expect.  

There are many contributing factors, but topping the list are the many ways in which IT functions have been extremely poorly managed by top leaders while also being increasingly severed from academic oversight and governance. From the poorly handled reorganization of the IT department to the incessant pushing forward with ill-fitting and costly technological changes, staff within IT have been working within an increasingly corrosive working environment, and negative impacts are being felt across nearly all university departments.  

We want a chance to be excited about change, to exercise our professional judgment, and to actually use the skills for which we were hired in the service of the university’s open mission. We want to break out of unproductive siloes and to understand how our individual work contributes to achievable, shared goals. AUFA calls on the university administration to pause the implementation of the Integrated Learning Environment and prioritize staff agency and input in an honest and transparent reassessment of technological change initiatives.  

Time to Start Listening 

Of course, there are forces at play that are larger than AU alone. The post-secondary sector across the province and beyond is strained by many of the same issues, and the current provincial government has contributed to many crises and challenges across institutions. But AU is not simply a victim of circumstances. There are many things that are fully within the university’s power to change.  

The top-down, managerial, corporate-style leadership adopted over the past several years is not working, nor is the increased reliance on external vendors. Our strength as a university comes from within – the dedication and commitment of those who do the real work in the service of students is the reason AU has survived despite abysmal failures of leadership.  

As a faculty association, we have frequently engaged our membership in order to gather meaningful feedback and input on both internal union decisions and broader university questions. Our understanding of the current situation is grounded in countless hours of respectful listening, reading, writing, and discussions with colleagues. Yet we have been consistently ignored, sidelined, or belittled by successive university leaders. We expect that our colleagues in our sibling unions have had a similar experience.  

We believe that, for the university to achieve stability and grow in its mandate as an open public institution, senior administrators and the board of governors need to hear, respect, and meaningfully respond to the concerns and suggestions raised by faculty, staff, and students. Better yet, AU needs to move beyond listening and empower faculty and staff to actively and meaningfully participate in decision making processes, including those at the highest level.  

AUFA calls on the Board of Governors and the university administration to refocus on core, mission-driven work; to prioritize stability and faculty and staff well-being; to empower employees to exercise meaningful agency; and to strengthen collegial governance by increasing transparency and participation.  

Rhiannon Rutherford, AUFA President 

Your Turn 

The AUFA executive will be identifying more specific priorities to present to the new university leadership. Use this space to share your priorities or any other thoughts about the recent announcement and how AUFA should respond.  

Open letter to Dr. Peter Scott and AU’s Executive Team

Dear Dr. Peter Scott and members of AU’s Executive Team,

As you are likely aware, collective bargaining between AU and AUFA has not been going well.

We fully respect that you are maintaining distance from the process to allow AU’s bargaining team to represent the employer’s interests at the table. However, the current context does suggest that some direction from the Executive Team may be necessary to bring this extended conflict to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

Specifically, there are significant contextual factors that are important to highlight.

AUFA members want a fair deal

AUFA members recently rejected a mediator’s proposed settlement by 77%, with 91% of members voting. This sends a strong and clear message that the concessions AU has been seeking in this round of bargaining are simply not acceptable.

No one is looking forward to a strike or lockout that could entail significant disruptions for learners. But AUFA members have also demonstrated that they are not willing to accept significant concessions that would erode working conditions, collegiality, and student experiences over time. Despite previous framing of AUFA as the aggressive party in this dispute, AUFA members are fully aware that our true position is that of defending valued protections and benefits from an unnecessarily aggressive employer.

Not all our members agree on every issue—that is the nature of a democratic organization—but our ongoing engagement efforts have revealed some clear themes that provide important context for determining what a fair deal might look like in this context.

We want to be excited about the future of AU

Our members have told us they believe deeply in the mission of this university. The strongest consensus that has emerged from our consultations is that we care about students and about learning. We want to be excited about our work. We want to be innovative, creative, and rigorous. But we feel blocked by a combination of factors and forces.

The most common concern is that our members feel overwhelmed by work and stripped of agency. Professional members affected by reorganization and major change initiatives feel they are denied the chance to do their best work. Academic members worry about the erosion of collegial governance while pressure increases a sense of precarity, especially for those newer to AU. Our members tell us key decisions are made in ways that shut out our expertise, experience, and enthusiasm.

We don’t oppose change and transformation, but it matters how that change happens. We don’t want to feel bullied, belittled, or ignored. We want you to listen to our feedback—really listen—and meaningfully include us in decision-making processes.

AUFA members are realizing that the process of collective bargaining offers a rare chance to assert our own agency. We don’t have to passively accept negative changes to our working conditions. Instead, we can demand the respect we deserve. We have heard from many members who suggest that they don’t want to strike but they will if necessary.

It’s about more than the language on the table

We all know this round of bargaining doesn’t exist in isolation. Our collective agreement has a long history and context and is intertwined with other aspects of our work environment.

There are a wide range of management decisions that influence how we feel about what’s going on at the bargaining table. There are many examples of this, so we’ll only name a few.

• The IT Optimization project was a really negative experience for most of our affected members, many of whom continue to feel devalued and stripped of agency.

• Top-down decisions affecting members in the Faculty of Health Disciplines, in particular, have combined with the pressures of educating front-line workers throughout the pandemic to create significant stress and erode morale.

• Many members have experienced the Near-Virtual initiative as stressful and contradictory.

• Many members have expressed concern about the lack of consultation and transparency during the implementation of the Integrated Learning Environment.

• We routinely field calls from members looking for clarification and support with navigating AU’s own processes, including significant concerns about a lack of support from HR with basic employment needs and an unnecessarily adversarial approach to labour relations.

• Members continue to feel anxious about AU’s threat to de-designate them from the union.

These experiences illustrate why we see a clear signal in our surveys that our members have extremely low levels of trust in AU’s leadership. Trust was already low when we started the surveys during Dr. Neil Fassina’s tenure, and it has only dropped since. In November 2021, only 15% of members surveyed said they agreed with the statement, “I trust the executive team of the university,” while 58% said they did not. AUFA members are not alone in this. Many AUPE and CUPE members have shared similar frustrations.

This low level of trust affects how we interpret communications from AU. Many members describe feeling insulted or outraged when reading AU’s communications, even on topics unrelated to bargaining, and have described it as incomplete, misleading, or disingenuous.

To be clear, this is not a reflection of the way our members who facilitate AU communications do their work. Rather, this reflects frustration and even exasperation with the lack of meaningful, transparent, and timely communication shared by AU’s top leaders.

It’s important for you to understand that our members have learned over the years to be suspicious or skeptical of the information and spin offered by AU’s leadership. What this means is that platitudes and vague promises won’t win our trust back. We need concrete and tangible actions.

You have the power to change course

The AUFA executive and volunteers will keep listening to AUFA members. In the past few weeks, we have heard that many members feel distracted and demoralized, and that most would very much appreciate an end to this lengthy battle. But our members are also focused on safeguarding and advancing valued protections and benefits.

It is clear that the university is the body with the power to change course. You have the opportunity to set a new tone that foregrounds respect for the workers of this university. You have the chance to open a new chapter of improved labour relations and increased collegiality. Give us all—our members, our colleagues, and our students—the chance to look to the future of AU with renewed optimism and energy.

We ask that you send a strong signal that you are ready to acknowledge, respect, and value the work we do. It’s time for you to demonstrate that you’re prepared to empower us to do our best work in service of our shared mission to remove barriers and increase equality of educational opportunity for adult learners worldwide.

Respectfully,

AUFA Executive and Members

This letter, with 130 AUFA members' signatures included, was delivered to Dr. Scott and the AU Executive on April 5, 2022. We are hopeful this will help to encourage the employer to take a different approach to bargaining than we've seen over the past several months.

AUFA applies for strike vote

After consulting with the bargaining team, AUFA’s executive has applied to the Alberta Labour Relations Board to hold a strike vote. The online vote is scheduled to take place between 9 am and 9 pm on Tuesday, March 29. 

This announcement to the membership was slightly delayed because AUFA’s bargaining team agreed to suspend strike communication on March 18 in order to gain the employer’s agreement for further mediation today.  

The Executive will be holding membership townhall meeting to provide a bargaining update and discuss the strike vote. 

How we got here 

In February, AUFA applied for formal mediation after 11 months of unproductive bargaining. Formal mediation began and ended on March 8. This started a 14-day cooling-off period before a strike vote could be held. 

The bargaining team has continued bargaining (with a different mediator) on March 11, 18, and 22. The parties agreed to not disclose the substance of their discussions during mediation. No agreement has yet been reached. AUFA’s team remains ready to bargain to achieve a fair deal. 

The employer’s past behaviour suggests that AU makes significant moves only when AUFA applies significant pressure. For example, AU only presented a full offer in January (after 10 months of bargaining) when AU was faced with a Labour Board hearing over a complaint that AU was bargaining in bad faith. AU only moved to propose a pattern cost-of-living offer after AUFA filed for formal mediation on in February. 

AUFA members’ 85% rejection of AU’s March 8 offer has not yielded a subsequent offer from AU that AUFA’s bargaining team thinks is worth presenting to the membership. The AUFA Executive is of the opinion that a successful strike vote may provide the pressure needed to get a fair deal from AU. 

How a strike vote works 

A strike vote is an online vote (just like any other AUFA vote) that is supervised by the Labour Board. It asks members whether they would authorize a strike (yes or no). Once the vote has been completed and certified by the Labour Board (and assuming a majority of voters authorize a strike), AUFA’s executive is then able, any time in the next 120 days, to give AU 72 hours of notice of a strike beginning.  

A successful strike vote does not necessarily mean strike notice is immediately served (although it can be). Typically, a successful strike vote results in further bargaining as the employer confronts the possibility of an actual strike. 

To maximize the employer’s incentive to bargain a deal, unions seek the strongest possible ‘yes’ vote. This shows the employer there will be real consequences if they employer refuses to negotiate a fair deal. 

What you can do to show support the bargaining team   

The biggest thing you can do is to vote ‘yes’ to authorize a strike. This sends a clear message to the employer that their refusal to sign a fair deal will have consequences. This gives the bargaining team leverage to negotiate a deal before a strike. 

Things you can do today include changing your Office 365 profile image to the We Are AU + We Are AUFA image below. This visually demonstrates your support for the bargaining team. Right click on the image below and save it to your computer. Then follow these instructions to substitute the image in place of your regular profile picture.

Instructions for changing your image in Microsoft Teams can be found here.

You can also save the MS Teams backgrounds below to your hard drive and follow these instructions to make them available as a virtual background option in Teams. Your new MS Teams background will appear backwards (i.e., mirror image) when you activate it. Don’t worry, other people will not see this ‘mirror’ view. 

I hope to see you all at the townhall later this week. Please keep your eyes peeled for more information about AUFA strike plans over the next few days. 

In solidarity, 

Dave Powell 

AUFA President 

AU Files Baffling Unfair Labour Practice Against AUFA

All AUFA members received notice of an unfair labour practice (ULP) recently filed against the association by Athabasca University, alleging bad faith bargaining. Some members have inquired what this is about. ULPs are allegations that the employer or union has engaged in behaviour prohibited by the Labour Relations Code. In this case, the employer’s complaint is about Holiday cards sent to them by the Job Action Committee (JAC).  The complaint alleges that these cards are a “mafia-esque” intimidation campaign against their families.

Here’s what the cards look like:

Background

During December, AUFA members participated in a meme campaign organized by JAC. These were intended as both a lighthearted way for members to share their concerns, and to pressure AU into bargaining in good faith. The meme campaign culminated in Holiday cards being mailed to the home addresses of the two bargaining co-chairs, and Interim President. You may recall that AUFA filed its own ULP with the Labour Board on September 24, 2021 alleging, among other things, that AU was bargaining in bad faith by withholding its monetary proposals. The employer eventually did release their full monetary offer on January 21st, a full 570 days after bargaining began.

The cards are a form of leafletting, an old union standby of distributing leaflets during bargaining to raise awareness and pressure the boss. In this case, the intention was to ensure the meme campaign reached the senior administrators behind AU’s bargaining strategy. The cards were sent to home addresses as AU is a work from home employer.

The following are quotes from the Unfair Labour Practice that detail the substance of the complaint:

AUFA’s conduct is illustrative of a very clear intent to engage in unlawful intimidation. The Christmas Cards were sent to the homes of the University’s bargaining committee’s Co-Chairs, and the University’s Interim President. They could have been sent to their offices, but AUFA made the choice to send them to their homes. From a common-sense perspective, in the circumstances, there is simply no reason that AUFA would send such acard to an individual’s home address, rather than their business address, other than to sendthe message: “we know where you live”. It is an implicit threat the safety of the recipient and that of their families.

…

This Mafia-esque communication tactic by AUFA clearly falls outside of the scope of communications that are permitted under Section 60 of the Code.

The notion that the cards were meant to imply impending violence upon the families of AU administrators is a complete overreaction and not based upon any reasonable facts. The Holiday cards have no direct nor implied threat, nor sense of what is being threatened. Both sides in bargaining have a full right to send mail to one another over bargaining, provided the bargaining teams are not circumvented.

Mafia-esque is a potentially defamatory claim, as it compares us to a criminal organization. We are a strong union who will protect and advance our rights, but in a manner that is both legal and transparent. Union pressure tactics are uncomfortable (that’s the point), but they are permissible and normal as they are the basic form of leverage in negotiations.

Bad Faith

Although the key issue in the ULP is the Holiday cards, the complaint in general is about bad faith bargaining, alleging that AUFA has no interest in signing a deal and instead wishes to strike for its own sake. Considering the Holiday cards relate to our request for AU to table its full monetary offer, this is a nonsense argument. Furthermore, the cards do not come from our Bargaining Team but rather the Job Action Committee who have distinct roles. This is not an attempt to bargain, as AU alleges, but a pressure tactic on the administrators and counsel who direct bargaining.

AU’s assertion that AUFA intends to strike no matter what is untrue. Many blog posts and town halls have underlined that strike preparedness is required for effective negotiations, but that we are negotiating towards a deal, not a strike for its own sake. A strike for no reason is also an impossibility as a strike is a vote by the entire AUFA membership, not something willed into existence by AUFA executive. As communicated repeatedly, JAC’s job is to get us into a strike-ready position while the Bargaining Team tries to get a deal. If we do not have a strike ready position, our Bargaining Team will lack the support and leverage they need to get that deal. Organizing for successful job action takes years, and failure to do so would be negligent.

Summary

None of this would be necessary if AU would drop its concessions-only approach to bargaining. For the past decade every proposal from AU has involved wage freezes or cuts and massive erosion of our protections and rights (particularly for professionals). In order to get a deal, our only approach is to apply escalating pressure with a potential strike at the end. The pressure is uncomfortable, but it is also uncomfortable to work for bosses who so flagrantly disrespect their staff.

Athabasca University is a tremendously successful university not despite us, but because of us. Investment in AU staff is an investment in AU itself, and happy staff who have strong rights and protections will improve the university in turn. They need us, and we are done being a piggy bank they can try to smash every three years. 

David Powell

AUFA President

Strike Support Rising—Member Survey

In late November, AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) completed its fifth telephone survey of members. Thirty-one volunteer callers contacted 102 randomly selected AUFA members (~23.5% of the membership). The resulting sample is broadly representative of our membership as a whole. This blog presents aggregated results. Key themes include: 

• AUFA enjoys broad support (90%). 

• Trust in the university executive is low (15%). 

• Members want a reasonable wage increase to offset inflation. 

• Member solidarity is high and there is growing support for a strike. 

Climate Questions 

Survey callers asked three recurring and one new climate question. Overall, there were no major differences between the views of professional and academic members. The new question (about morale) addresses comments in past surveys that members often enjoy their job (thus enjoy starting work in the morning) but are frustrated with working at AU. 

Overall, 39% of members agree that their morale is high while 34% indicate it is low. This is significantly different than the 75% of members who indicate they enjoy starting work in the morning. Comments associated with these questions suggest that many members enjoy the work they do. However, they find the context in which they do that work very frustrating. A number of members noted that they have intentionally reduced their university service work in order to reduce their frustration. This new morale question appears to generate a more nuanced assessment of where the membership is at and will be retained going forward.  

When asked if they trust the executive team of the university, 15% of respondents said yes while 58% said no. These results are similar to the April 2021 survey, where 16% of respondents indicated they trust the executive and 63% indicated they did not. It appears the departure of Neil Fassina has arrested the freefall in member trust but the executive has not been able to repair the damage. 

Respondent comments identified several issues driving ongoing mistrust of AU’s executive. These include efforts to bust the union through de-designation, continuing problems with the IT re-organization, lack of any meaningful progress at the bargaining table, unmanageable workloads, pay inequity, the sneaky withdrawal of market supplements, executive invisibility, and insincere communications.  

One member’s comments (paraphrased by the interviewer) provide a representative view of the AU executive: 

The pandemic has been incredibly difficult and the actions of the AU executive team during this time have been cruel. They appear to operate with a total disregard for university employees, in fact they seem to operate with a disregard for what makes AU a good place to work and a good university. I have little faith that they make decisions with the interests of faculty, staff, and students in mind. It has become difficult to hope that the future of the university will be a good one. Their detached, non-transparent, and hostile-to-consultation style of leadership is likely to be disastrous for the university.  

A very small number of members hope a new president will change the executive’s behaviour. It is difficult to imagine how the current executive can turn matters around and a top-to-bottom executive “house cleaning” may be the best option. 

When asked whether AUFA was doing a good job, 90% of members agreed; only 2% disagreed. This is broadly similar to the April 2021 survey, where 93% of respondents indicated AUFA was doing a good job and 2% disagreed.  

Bargaining Questions 

The survey asked several questions about bargaining. The full results have been provided to the bargaining team to inform their approach at the table going forward. Significantly, there has been a notable increase in member willingness to strike. In April 2021, 69% of members said they would strike to avoid a 4% rollback. In this survey, 96% of members said they would strike to avoid any rollback. 

Members were asked what their highest priority change to the collective agreement was. By far, the most common answer was a raise to address inflation. AUFA members have not had a raise in salary grids in four years. Job security was also ranked as a priority, although notably less so.   

With the employer yet to table a full proposal (i.e., monetary plus full language on a number of items are still missing), there is a chance that AU may attempt some wedge tactics. To gauge the effectiveness of this potential approach, members were asked about their willingness to accept an employer offer that provided them with a small gain but only if they agreed to a rollback that would harm other members.  

Respondents overwhelming (81%) rejected such wedge tactics, with only 1% indicating they would accept such an offer. 

What this survey suggests is that wedge tactics would not be an effective approach for AU. This high level of member resistance to wedge tactics is likely influenced by AU’s efforts in 2020 to de-designate large portions of the AUFA membership. This cynical move only strengthened member solidarity.  

Members were also asked whether they had any concerns or questions about a possible work stoppage. These items have been passed along to the AUFA Job Action Committee for discussion. In the meantime, members with questions about a possible work stoppage are encouraged to consult the following resources on the AUFA website:  

• strike primer 

• work stoppage FAQs   

• financially preparing for a strike or lockout 

• professional and practical strike or lockout preparation 

• strike prep 

• striking and strike pay consultation 

Finally, the survey asked members questions about equity issues at AU. These results will be passed along to the AUFA Equity Committee for discussion. Members’ responses will also be shared as part of AUFA’s external equity audit. More information about this audit process (including how to get involved) will be shared in the new year.  

MEC very much appreciates the work of the 31 volunteer callers, who made this survey the easiest to conduct yet. MEC also appreciates the 102 AUFA members who took the time to speak with the callers and help AUFA’s various committees understand the views and needs of AUFA members. 

Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair 

AUFA Membership Engagement Committee 

Strike prep: 500 days without a contract

Today marks the 500th day that AUFA members have been working without a contract. Indeed, we don’t even have a full opening offer from the employer yet. AU’s bad-faith bargaining is making it impossible to negotiate a new contract. Since the employer won’t bargain, AUFA’s Job Action Committee (JAC) has begun preparing for what seems like an inevitable strike.

A few weeks ago, JAC asked members to suggest tactics designed to pressure AU to agree to an acceptable contract settlement. A credible strike threat is necessary to get a fair deal at the table, and AUFA members should have some input into the tactics AUFA employs.

This blog outlines a high level overview of some of those member-suggested tactics. It also answers some of the questions AUFA members asked JAC. Over the coming weeks, JAC will discuss these tactics in some detail, as well as strategize when and how best to use them.

Suggested Tactics

The suggested tactics fall into three broad categories:

• Operational: When AUFA members withdraw their labour, AU processes that rely on AUFA members’ work will slow or stop.

• Financial: A strike (or its prospect) disincentivizes students to enrol in courses, thereby reducing institutional revenue.

• Reputational: Strike-related communications (before or during a strike) can do long-term damage to AU’s reputation as a good place to work or go to school.

AUFA members suggested four main operational tactics:

• a work slowdown or working to rule,

• refusing certain or additional work assignments,

• signing a “no scabbing” pledge with AUPE and CUPE, or

• fully withdrawing labour (i.e., a strike).

AUFA members suggested a number of ways to apply reputational pressure to AU. In these examples, please read “bosses” as meaning members of both AU’s executive and AU’s Board of Governors.

• contacting bosses and/or politicians (in person and electronically),

• bringing in a mediator to bargaining sessions (creating an observer effect),

• holding a non-confidence vote in AU’s bargaining team or the Board,

• conducting a media campaign highlighting AU’s bargaining position and behaviour,

• organizing information pickets (e.g., pickets, car convoys, leafleting) that target bosses and MLAs’ homes, offices, and businesses, as well as meetings of the Board of Governors,

• publicizing data related to bosses’ salaries and administrative bloat,

• informing and/or pressurizing the new president about how AU’s bargaining is affecting staff relations, and

• organizing a national campaign of censure over AU’s bargaining approach.

AUFA members suggested a number of ways to apply financial pressure to AU, including:

• organizing a student boycott for the duration of any work stoppage, and

• asking colleagues to refrain from recommending that students attend AU or accept transfer credits from AU until bargaining is settled.

A small number of members noted that a work stoppage would lead to students experiencing delays in completing their education. Other members identified the risk that reputational harm might persist after a new contract is settled.

Questions

Members asked a number of questions. JAC has endeavoured to answer them below.

Q: Will AU save money during a work stoppage?

A: AU’s expenses during a work stoppage will decline because it will not pay AUFA salaries or benefits. This means that, for a strike to be effective, the financial impact of a work stoppage on AU’s revenue must be sufficiently large to offset these savings.

Q: Will we lose our jobs if we strike?

A: Unlikely. Alberta’s Labour Relations Code bars employers from terminating staff for participating in a strike. Article 12 of our collective agreement does allow AU to lay off staff (with notice), but AU would only be permitted to do this if a) “the employer permanently discontinues some or all of its operations, or no longer employs employees to do certain work” or b) AU is able to show financial exigency.

It is of course possible that AU will trigger a reduction in tuition revenue by forcing AUFA to strike. But AU normally manages enrollment fluctuations by reducing CUPE members’ teaching loads, so the risk of layoffs resulting from a strike is very low.

Q: How will I afford to live during a work stoppage?

A: A few weeks ago, AUFA provided information about strike pay and benefits as well as strategies AUFA members may wish to use to prepare for the financial impact of a work stoppage.

Q: Will the reputational harm cause long-term damage to AU?

A: Maybe. AU’s approach to labour relations over the past few years (e.g., repeatedly seeking unnecessary rollbacks to our collective agreement, adopting an unnecessarily antagonistic approach to labour relations, trying to bust the union) has made AU a less attractive place to work. Forcing AUFA to strike would only reinforce this view. A strike would also make AU look like an unreliable provider of education. AU could avoid these outcomes by changing its behaviour, both at the bargaining table and in the workplace more generally.

Q: Why does AUFA use Lego graphics in its blog posts and information updates?

A: Lego is a low-cost way to create custom graphics that convey the gist of AUFA blog posts and information updates in a quick and accessible way. These graphics drive up readership of the blog in a way that clip-art posts or posts with no graphics do not. The graphics also attach costs to bad behaviour by AU’s executive (e.g., by lampooning them) which, over time, appears to reduce their willingness to continue behaving badly.

Q: What is the status of the unfair labour practice complaint AUFA filed?

A: AU has delayed the hearing of the unfair labour practice complaint (as well as AUFA’s application for an ESA exemption) by providing few dates when AU is available to attend Labour Board meetings and hearings as well as by continually asking AUFA for additional information.

Q: Why is AUFA talking about a strike while bargaining is still underway?

A: Planning a successful strike takes time, so we need to start now. Members also need time to prepare. Preparing publicly to strike gives AU time to recognize that the threat of a strike is real, to consider whether it wants to alter its behaviour to avoid one and, instead, to negotiate a new contract (which is the ultimate goal).

Q: Is it common to wait until the end of bargaining to negotiate wages?

A: Sometimes parties choose to negotiate language before tackling monetary issues (e.g., AU and AUPE Local 69 are doing this). This decision is often justified as being a way to gain momentum at the table before tackling harder issues like wages.

It is worth noting, however, that the supposed dichotomy between monetary and non-monetary issues is a false one. Almost every piece of contract language has monetary implications.

One of the consequences of settling language issues before talking money is that doing so reduces the number of bargaining chips available to AUFA (and AU, for that matter) to structure a final deal that is acceptable to both sides.

Given AU’s track record and its lawyer’s assertion that AU’s full proposal is so bad that AU expects AUFA to strike, AUFA’s bargaining team thinks it is advisable to see the entirety of AU’s opening proposal before agreeing on any changes.

Q: Why is AUFA focused on complaining about AU not providing a full offer instead of telling us about wins at the table?

A: AUFA’s bargaining team provides updates after each set of bargaining dates. There have been no wins at the table to report. This is, in part, because AU’s partial opening offer contains a large number of rollbacks for which there is no justification.

Further hampering bargaining is AU’s unwillingness to present a full opening offer (see question above). It is unfortunate that AUFA has to pressure AU into doing the bare legal minimum required to engage in good-faith bargaining. But that’s a function of how AU is approaching bargaining.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

Professional and Practical Strike or Lockout Preparation

Last week, AUFA provided some basic information about making financial preparation for a strike or lockout. This week, we’ll be discussing how to prepare practically and professionally.

Any job action is preceded by the long series of steps outlined two weeks ago in our strike primer. Once either party is in position to trigger a work stoppage, you will still have 72 hours of notice of any strike or lockout.

Access to AU Systems

Typically, union members have no access to workplace technology during a work stoppage. It would be wise to prepare for the possibility that AU will disable access to our email, files, and computers.

Preparations might include moving any personal or research files to a data stick or non-AU computer, recording important contact information and calendar events, creating and sharing a non-AU email address with colleagues, and ensuring you have access to a non-AU phone.

AUFA has been collecting non-AU contact information from members. If you have not yet provided this information (or if it has changed), please send your information to aufahq@aufa.ca. During any work stoppage, AUFA will use this information to deploy a new member communication platform.

Physical Access to AU

Employers typically restrict workers’ access to the workplace during a work stoppage. When notice of a strike or lockout is issued, staff who normally work on campus may wish to remove their personal property from AU’s buildings.

Grants and Research Projects

AUFA recognizes that some members have time-sensitive obligations related to their grants and research work. AUFA will not interfere with the timely completion of such tasks. It is not clear whether AU will be similarly accommodating.

Consequently, it is worthwhile identifying upcoming deadlines and planning ahead for how you will meet them. This includes ensuring that research colleagues and granting agencies have a way of contacting you if AU suspends access to AU IT.

Notifying Colleagues

Many of us work with colleagues in other organizations. As a work stoppage approaches, it may be necessary to alert them of the work stoppage and that it may impact our ability to respond promptly or meet previous commitments.

Prior to a work stoppage becoming imminent, it may be useful to identify people you work with outside of AU who may be affected by your absence and/or inability to access your AU IT. When a work stoppage appears imminent, send them an email outlining that a work stoppage is looming and outline how this may affect them.

You may also wish to ask your colleagues to refrain from dealing with AU until the work stoppage is ended. Academics, for example, may wish to ask academics at other institutions to refuse to approve transfer credit from AU and stop suggesting students come to AU as visiting students until the work stoppage is concluded.

Discussing a Work Stoppage with Students

Students will be negatively affected by a work stoppage. Some will see delays in teaching and marking. Others will see delays in administrative processes. AUFA will be communicating with AUSU and AUGSA about the timing and impact of a work stoppage, but you may also receive queries directly for students.

Here are some basic talking points that may be helpful in these conversations with students.

• Faculty are seeking a reasonable cost of living increase to their wages after years of salary stagnation. AU has run operating surpluses almost every year for nearly a decade.

• Faculty are also seeking to maintain long-standing rights (e.g., professional freedom) and make improvements in the workplace (e.g., addressing historical inequities and unsafe workplaces).

• AU has not shown any receptivity to these legitimate requests. Indeed, the employer has not even seen fit to table a full offer of its own. This makes it impossible for faculty to bargain a new deal with AU.

• The impact of a work stoppage on AU students is unfortunate. Nevertheless, AUFA members must look after their own interests and those of their families. Students who are frustrated can contact the AUSU (ausu@ausu.org) or AUGSA (president@augsa.com) or AU President Peter Scott (pscott@athabascau.ca) to express their concerns.

• Students who have specific questions about how AU will operate during a work stoppage should consult the AU website or contact AU President Peter Scott (pscott@athabascau.ca).

The Job Action Committee hopes this brief overview will help you to begin practically and professionally planning for a possible work stoppage. We will continue to provide you more information about work stoppages as needs arise. Please direct any questions to Bob Barnetson (barnetso@athabascau.ca).

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

Strike Primer

One possible outcome of bargaining is reaching impasse (i.e., neither side is prepared to make further concessions in the hope of reaching a deal). If this happens, AUFA members may choose to go on strike to pressure AU to compromise. AU may also choose to lock AUFA members out to pressure us. (And both of these things can happen at once). This blog post is the first of several that will examine what a work stoppage would entail at AU and how AUFA members can prepare for it.

What are strikes and lockouts?

A strike is a cessation of work by employees in order to pressure the employer to agree to a set of proposals. Usually, this involves not attending the workplace but can also entail a formal work-to-rule campaign.

A lockout is when an employer denies its workers work (usually by restricting access to the workplace) and wages in order to pressure the workers to agree to a set of proposals.

In any dispute, workers may strike, their employer may lock them out, or sometimes both of these things can happen. Strikes and lockouts occur after collective bargaining has reached impasse. Strikes and lockouts end when the parties agree to a new collective agreement.

One of the nuances of labour relations is that, while workers must choose to go on strike (see below), an employer can often precipitate a strike by acting unreasonably at the bargaining table and leaving workers no other choice.

What is bargaining impasse?

Bargaining impasse occurs when one or both sides conclude that no further progress at the table is likely to be made. At this point, there are several ways to break the impasse:

• Both parties can agree to enter voluntary mediation, where a mediator helps the parties to seek resolution.

• Both parties can agree to send the dispute to arbitration to have it resolved by a neutral third party (see below). It is worth noting that AU has declined to do this in past negotiations with AUPE.

• Either party can request that the Labour Board hold a proposal vote. If the employer sought a proposal vote, AUFA’s members would be polled by the Labour Board to determine whether they wish to accept AU’s current proposal.

• Either party can commence a process that may lead to a work stoppage.

It is possible for more than one of these scenarios to happen, and the parties may cycle between them. For example, the employer may want to seek voluntary mediation. The union may initially participate but, seeing no progress, offer voluntary arbitration. The employer may decline this and seek a proposal vote by the Labour Board. If the union members turn down the employer’s offer, the union may look to hold a strike vote to improve its bargaining position and then return to voluntary mediation to see if the employer has changed its mind.

As the above example suggests, this process is messy and slow and frustrating. It is designed to be that way in order to give both sides every opportunity to consider the costs of a work stoppage and come to a deal. At any time, though, the union or the employer (or both) can decide to move toward a work stoppage. Similarly, they can also choose to stop moving towards a work stoppage and explore settlement.

What steps precede a work stoppage?

The parties must complete five steps before a work stoppage can commence:

1. Essential services agreement (ESA): The parties must come to an arrangement that ensures that services essential to ensuring the life, health and safety of others and public order continue to be provided during a work stoppage. AUFA filed for an exemption to the ESA requirement in mid-September.

2. Formal Mediation: Upon application of either party, the government appoints a mediator who works with the parties to try to fashion an agreeable settlement. If both sides accept the mediator’s recommendation, then it becomes the new collective agreement. Seeking formal mediation will be the next step towards a work stoppage if there is no meaningful progress in bargaining.

3. Cooling-Off Period: If no agreement is reached during mediation, there is a mandatory cooling-off period of at least 14 days. During this time, the parties can continue negotiations.

4. Strike Vote/Lockout Poll: After the cooling-off period, the union may apply to the Labour Board for a supervised vote to authorize strike action. Similarly, the employer may apply to the Labour Board for a supervised lockout poll to authorize lockout action. A strike may only commence if a majority of AUFA members who vote cast their ballot in favour of a strike. A strong strike mandate will often cause an employer to reconsider what is their true bottom line.

5. Notice of Strike or Lockout: Once one (or both) of the parties has secured authorization (i.e., a majority vote) to strike or lockout, it may serve 72 hours of notice on the other party that a work stoppage will commence.

At any time during this process, the parties can conclude a new collective agreement. The process is lengthy to allow time for the parties to explore all settlement options.

What will happen during a strike or lockout?

This depends for the most part on the employer, but you can likely expect to lose physical and digital access to the workplace for the duration of the work stoppage. A future blog post will discuss making practical preparations for a work stoppage.

You will also likely see a cessation of your wages and a suspension of pensionable service and contributions. A future blog post will discuss the arrangements AUFA has made to assist members to weather a wage cessation, as well as steps to take to prepare for this possibility.

How will AUFA continue operations during a work stoppage?

AUFA has collected non-AU phone numbers and email addresses for approximately 95% of its members. AUFA will use this information as well as its blog to maintain contact with members during a work stoppage. If you have not provided this information in the past and would like to do so, please email aufahq@aufa.ca .

What will AUFA expect of members during a work stoppage?

The withdrawal of labour is a key source of pressure on the employer during a work stoppage. The main purpose of withdrawing labour is to disrupt AU’s operations. AUFA’s executive will determine how a labour withdrawal will work. This might include a full walk out, a partial walk out, or rotating walk outs. AUFA members will be expected to comply with directions from the AUFA executive to not report for or otherwise perform AU-related work during a work stoppage.

Picketing is a common tactic during work stoppages and will form one aspect of AUFA’s strike strategy. Picketing is intended to discourage “customers” from patronizing the employer (i.e., interrupt AU’s revenue streams) and also to embarrass the employer (i.e., cause reputational harm) in an effort to get AU to make AUFA members a reasonable collective agreement offer. AUFA’s work stoppage planning committee is currently discussing various other strike activities that are appropriate given our dispersed workforce.

What happens if I choose to continue working during a work stoppage?

Under AUFA’s constitution, AUFA’s membership can vote to suspend members. Practically speaking, the consequences for crossing the picket line (which is often referred to as “scabbing”) are more informal and involve social exclusion of free-riders by their peers once the work stoppage is over. The emotional pressure caused by social exclusion is often so acute that it causes scabs to seek work elsewhere.

Are there circumstances that might warrant working during a stoppage?

The Job Action Committee has identified members on Research and Study Leave (RSL) or sick leave, and members with special research circumstances (e.g., grant reporting deadlines, data collection, or experiments ongoing on the date of the stoppage) as warranting special consideration.

What are the chances of a work stoppage occurring?

On average, only 1% of negotiations in Alberta ends in a work stoppage each year. The Board’s recent aggressiveness, the government’s rollback mandate, and the opportunity that single-table bargaining presents for them to force major changes in collective agreement language suggests the risk of a work stoppage is higher than average at AU.

How long will a work stoppage last?

The long-term data on work stoppages in Canadian post-secondary education (n=50) suggests the mean duration of work stoppage is 22.5 days and 90% of strikes last less than 6 weeks.

How long a work stoppage lasts at AU will be determined by (1) the issues over which there remains a dispute and (2) the effectiveness of the pressure brought by each side on the other during a work stoppage.

A third factor affecting duration is whether and when the government intervenes to bring an end to the dispute. The recent Ontario college strike (12,000 workers, hundreds of thousands of students) lasted over five weeks before the workers were ordered back to work.

How would a work stoppage affect my pension?

UAPP has identified two implications of a work stoppage for pensions. Both impacts are expected to be slight, based upon the historically short nature of PSE work stoppage.

First, the period of the work stoppage would not be considered pensionable service, since AUFA members would not be receiving pay and neither the member nor the employer would be making pensionable contributions. The effect of this would be to slightly delay the point at which a member received the 80 points (age plus years of service) necessary to qualify for a full pension. This would only affect members intending to retire as soon as they have their “pension numbers.”

Second, for members within five years of retirement, the loss of income may affect their pensionable income. Your pension income is based upon your best five consecutive years of earnings. This effect is expected to be slight and would vary based upon the duration of the work stoppage and a member’s employment history.

UAPP suggests that the period of a work stoppage could be treated as pensionable if that were negotiated as part of the settlement of the work stoppage.

Can the parties go to arbitration instead of having a work stoppage?

If both AUFA and AU agree, items in dispute can be remitted to an arbitrator. At arbitration, a neutral third party decides the content of a collective agreement after hearing presentations by both sides.

Why is AUFA preparing for a work stoppage instead of arbitration?

There are several reasons for this. Over the past 10 years, the Athabasca University’s Board has become increasingly aggressive during collective bargaining. This raises the possibility of the employer using a lockout to force rollbacks in our collective agreement. When there is a strike or lockout, the existing collective agreement is terminated. Employers will sometimes have a short lock out to do this and then invite workers back to work under the employer’s last offer. Unless workers are prepared to strike, they are stuck de facto accepting the employer’s last offer.

For this reason, AUFA needs to be ready to respond to a lockout while continuing to seek a fair and negotiated agreement at the bargaining table. If the employer offered to resolve matters at arbitration, the AUFA executive would consider such an offer. One of the risks that the AUFA executive would consider is that an arbitrator may split the difference between the parties’ respective positions. Depending on how far apart the parties are, AUFA may be able to get a better deal through a work stoppage than arbitration.

Finally, a seeming paradox: a credible strike plan reduces the chance of a work stoppage because it tells the employer that a lockout would be a hard road for the employer. This makes a negotiated settlement more attractive to the employer.

Who can I contact about a work stoppage?

Bob Barnetson (barnetso@athabascau.ca) is the chair of the Job Action Committee.

In the next few weeks, you can expect additional strike prep blog posts that will address making financial and professional preparations for a work stoppage.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee