committee

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:  

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 

Striking and Strike Pay Consultation

As AUFA readies itself for a possible work stoppage, the Job Action Committee (JAC) has begun detailed planning. An important set of foundational decisions AUFA must make are:

  • Who will be required to actively participate in a strike?

  • What labour will be withdrawn and what labour will be permitted to continue?

  • How will AUFA allocate strike pay?

  • How will we resolve disputes about these issues during a work stoppage?

In November, JAC made a series of recommendations to the Executive, including consulting members on these questions and ensuring any final decisions are ratified by the membership.

This blog post provides some recommended answers to these questions and seeks feedback from the membership by December 15. AUFA’s Executive will provide a revised set of recommendations (based on the feedback) to the membership in January in advance of a townhall and membership vote.

Background and Recommendations

To: AUFA Executive

From: Job Action Committee

Re: AUFA Strike and Picketing Framework

Overview

As we move closer to a possible work stoppage, AUFA needs to make some decisions about who will strike, what labour will be withdrawn, and how we will allocate strike pay.

The Job Action Committee (JAC) recommends AUFA’s Executive present the following recommendations to the membership for feedback, voting, and eventual ratification:

  1. All members be asked to withdraw their labour (i.e., strike) excepting those on parental leave, long-term disability, and those who receive an exemption (see Recommendation 5 below).

  2. During a strike, academic members be directed to stop teaching, coordinating their courses, and performing university service work.

  3. During a strike, professional members be directed to not engage in their professional duties and to stop their university service work.

  4. Strike pay be issued to members complying with (1), (2) and (3) above as well as performing strike duties as requested. The strike duty requirement will be waived for members on short-term sick leave or members whose RSL precludes participation, and those who receive an exemption (see Recommendation 5 below).

  5. AUFA set up a committee to adjudicate disputes and requests for exemptions balancing the need for solidarity with equity-based needs.

Background

A work stoppage can entail a strike, a lockout, or both simultaneously. During a lockout or a strike-lockout, the employer will prevent all AUFA members from performing work and receiving pay. Members on long-term disability will continue to be paid by the insurer and members on parental leave will continue to receive EI benefits.

During a strike (without an accompanying lockout), it will be up to AUFA’s Executive to decide:

  1. which members will withdraw their labour (thus foregoing their paycheque) in order to apply operational pressure to AU to settle, and

  2. what labour is to be withdrawn.

During any work stoppage (i.e., strike and/or lockout), it will also be up to AUFA’s Executive to decide what member strike duties (e.g., picketing, digital picketing, letter writing, AUFA service work) will occur to apply pressure to AU to settle. At this point, JAC expects strike duties to amount to about 2 hours of work per day per member, but that must remain as yet undetermined and may vary depending on the circumstances.

Who Should Strike?

The most effective strike is one where all AUFA members withdraw their labour. This maximizes the operational disruption and pressure on the employer to settle. It also prevents free riding (i.e., receiving the benefits won by a strike without participating in the strike), which can be corrosive to member solidarity.

JAC’s recommendation is that all AUFA members be directed to strike (i.e., withdraw their labour) except members on:

  • Long-term disability: Long-term disability benefits will continue during the strike. Members on long-term disability should be excused from withdrawing their labour (they are already off work) and from strike duties for as long as they remain on long-term disability. Members off on workers’ compensation would be treated similarly.

  • Parental Leave: Employment Insurance benefits will continue during the strike. Members on parental leave should be excused from withdrawing their labour (they are already off work) for as long as they remain on parental leave.

JAC recommends the Executive strike a committee (see below) to make decisions about any other exceptions that may emerge.

Members who are not required to strike would continue to receive pay via LTD or EI and would not be required to participate in strike activities.

What Labour to Withdraw?

Not all work is equally important to frustrating AU’s operations. AUFA members may also be reluctant to stop performing certain kinds of work. The work that is most important to the employer’s operations appears to be:

  • Academics: teaching, course coordination, and university service work.

  • Professionals: professional job duties and university service work.

The employer would be largely unaffected by the withdrawal of research, external service activities, and professional development work. Consequently, JAC recommends during any strike:

  1. Academic members be directed to stop teaching, course coordination, and university service work.

  2. Professional members be directed to stop their professional duties and university service work.

Members who wish to continue with external service, research, or professional development during a strike may do so at their discretion and without pay.

Strike Pay Eligibility

Strike pay amounts to $88 per calendar day (with no deductions) starting on the fourth day of the work stoppage. It is up to AUFA to set the criteria for members to qualify for strike pay. JAC recommends three criteria for eligibility:

  1. Direct deposit and contact information: The most sensible way to distribute strike pay is through direct deposit. In order to assign strike duties, AUFA will need a way to contact members. Consequently, to be eligible for strike pay, members will need to provide direct deposit and non-AU contact information to AUFA.

  2. Withdrawing labour: To be eligible for strike pay, members need to withdraw their labour consistent with the recommendation above.

  3. Performing strike duties: In addition to withdrawing their labour, members will need to be available to perform strike duties. JAC is cognizant of the need to recognize the complex and distributed nature of the AUFA membership when organizing strike duties.

What strike duties will members be expected to perform?

Members who are on strike will be expected to perform approximately 2 hours of strike duties per day in order to qualify for strike pay. The expectation of performing strike duties would be waived for members on:

  • Short-term illness: Members on short-term illness leave when a strike commences should be expected to withdraw their labour (in solidarity with their colleagues) but would not be required to perform strike duties if and as their illness requires it. Members who become ill during a strike should be excused from strike duties if and as their illness requires.

  • Research and Study Leave: Members on RSL (i.e., sabbatical) when a strike commences should be expected to withdraw their labour (in solidarity with their colleagues). If a member’s RSL activities make performing strike duties impractical (e.g., are attending a full-time graduate program, are out of the country), the requirement to perform strike duties to receive strike pay will be waived.

There will inevitably be questions about the application of these rules as well as unforeseen issues (e.g., family illness, childcare) that will arise. JAC recommends the Executive strike a committee (see below) to make decisions about any exemptions that emerge.

The following table outlines some of the strike duties available to AUFA members. JAC will present a more detailed strike plan to the AUFA Executive in the new year. These duties account for the complexity and geographical dispersal of AUFA’s membership.

Daily 

Picketing 

AUFA will host four physical pickets per week, rotating between Athabasca, Edmonton (x2), and Calgary. Picketing might include picketing, door knocking, and leafleting.  

Digital Picketing 

AUFA will produce daily shareables (e.g., graphics, testimonials with an action ask) that members can push out on social media as well as reshare others. Members can also comment on media reports.  

Outreach 

AUFA will produce talking points members can use to phone or email selected targets (e.g., AU’s president, Board members, MLAs and others). 

Committee Duties 

Some AUFA members will have daily or periodic committee duties. These include a large group of callers who will maintain weekly telephone contact with every AUFA member. 

Attend Meetings 

AUFA will need to periodically meet with its members to inform them of progress, seek feedback, maintain morale, and educate them on specific topics. Attendance at meetings will constitute strike activity. 

Periodic 

Education 

Some AUFA members have expressed an interest in developing short online education sessions targeting the public (specifically students).  

Creative 

Some AUFA members have expressed interest in creative activity (e.g., strike-related artwork, poetry, and songs).  

Tentatively, JAC is considering having members self-report their strike activity to drive strike pay eligibility. Members would be expected to produce records of their activity upon request.

Strike Pay Eligibility Committee

To address questions about strike-pay eligibility and strike duty questions, JAC recommends the Executive form a Strike Pay Eligibility Committee. This committee would be:

  • formed when AUFA enters formal mediation with the employer and would operate until the end of any work stoppage,

  • organized and chaired by the Vice-President and comprise six additional AUFA members selected by the Executive,

  • empowered to hear applications for exemptions from the general rules, set governing strike pay, participation, and strike duties, make binding decisions about such applications, and any other matters delegated to them by the Executive, and

  • guided by the principles of solidarity and equity, wherein all members should bear as equal a share of the cost of a work stoppage as is reasonably practicable for them to bear.

Member Feedback and Ratification

AUFA’s bylaws empower the Executive to make decisions required to operate the association in between member meetings. This gives the Executive the power to make decisions based on the recommendations above.

Consistent with our efforts to be transparent with and driven by the membership, JAC recommends the Executive:

  1. Provide this memo to AUFA members in December for feedback.

  2. Host a townhall in January to address questions and explain any updates (based on the feedback).

  3. Hold an online ratification vote of the final recommendations.

Your Turn

The Executive and JAC would like to hear member views on the recommendations set out above by December 15. AUFA will use this feedback to amend the recommendations before presenting them to the membership for a ratification vote in January.

In solidarity,

Dave Powell, President

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Promotion committee dissolution 

Lego committee.png

For the past year, AUFA has been working with three members of a promotion committee who were mistreated by AU. This blog post details the events in question with the aim of clearing these AUFA members’ reputations. 

Background 

Promotion committees are established pursuant to Article 3.6 of the collective agreement. When a professor applies for promotion, the Vice-President Academic (VPA) appoints a three-person committee to review and make a recommendation about whether or not promotion is warranted. Promotion committee work is generally viewed as confidential, with the candidate for promotion being informed only of the final outcome.   

In 2020, a promotion committee was established and began reviewing an application. In the summer of 2020, an allegation was made that a member of the promotion committee had disclosed confidential information. The VPA and the relevant dean met with the committee and announced there had been a breach of confidentiality.  

The VPA then told the members that the committee was being disestablished and an investigation into the alleged disclosure would take place (presumably conducted by Human Resources). The VPA also announced at the meeting that a new committee would be formed. The committee members responded that they would fully support a thorough investigation to find what happened and if there was any breach at all.  

The committee members were told the substance of the disclosure was that the committee was not going to recommend promotion. This was, in fact, not the committee’s recommendation. That the alleged leak was factually incorrect would suggest that the source of the leak was not a member of the committee. The committee was not informed who was accused of leaking the information. 

AU did not commence a disciplinary investigation under Article 7 of the collective agreement. Whatever investigation AU conducted did not include interviewing any of the committee members about the matter. In late November of 2020, HR told the committee members that there was a “perception” that the confidentiality of committee had been breached and a new promotion committee would be struck. This echoed what the VPA had announced earlier when he had met with the committee members to inform his decision.  

The members of the promotion committee told HR that they were concerned that their colleagues would infer they had committed some wrongdoing because the committee they had been serving on had been disbanded without explanation. They were concerned that this inference would negatively affect their reputations. They requested AU take action that would protect reputations. They again requested a thorough investigation into the matter. The HR representatives said they would need to consult their supervisors about this request. Ultimately, HR neither responded to this request nor took any action to protect the committee members’ reputations. 

Analysis 

The VPA’s decision to disband the committee and the subsequent investigation are problematic in five ways. 

  1.  Article 3.6 of the collective agreement gives the VPA the authority to establish a promotion committee. Article 3.6 does not give the VPA the authority to dis-establish the committee. AUFA has informed AU that, if the VPA wishes this authority, AU can either bargain this into the collective agreement or the VPA can seek the agreement of AUFA on a case-by-case basis. In this case, AUFA views the VPA to have violate the collective agreement. 

  2.  Sitting on promotion committees is a right conferred upon some AUFA members by Article 3.6. Article 7.5 identifies that denying members collective agreement rights is a form of discipline. Article 7.1 says that no member shall be subject to disciplinary action except in accordance with the procedures outlined in Article 7. Summarily dismissing members from a promotion committee constitutes a denial of rights. The VPA’s imposition of this denial without completing the investigation process required by Article 7 is a violation of the collective agreement. 

  3.  The VPA’s dissolution of the committee before any meaningful investigation of the allegation had been undertaken shows a profound disregard for procedural justice. Essentially, the committee members were treated as guilty until proven innocent. Even a cursory review of the facts readily available to the VPA (the alleged leak and the committee’s actual recommendation) would have demonstrated that the alleged leak was factually incorrect. This, in turn, strongly suggests that the committee members were not the source of the leak. Surely, if a committee member was going to leak the outcome of a decision, the leak would be factually correct. 

  4.  Whatever investigation AU undertook was inconsistent with the principles of natural justice. Natural justice includes the right of the accused to know the case against them and make a response before a conclusion about alleged wrongdoing is reached. The former committee members were never interviewed or given a meaningful opportunity to respond to whatever allegations were made or the evidence (if any) that implicated them. 

  5.   Disbanding a committee this way casts a cloud over the reputations of the former committee members. Their colleagues will be aware that the committee that they were on was disbanded and that they are not on the new promotion committee. For this reason, AU’s unwillingness to clear the committee members’ names continues to work a hardship upon these members. Like many other AUFA members, these three members have always been sincere, doing their best to advance the academic standards and reputation of this institution. The decisions made by the VPA and the subsequent inaction are likely to demotivate and demoralize sincere AUFA members.  

Efforts by AUFA and the committee members to resolve this matter have been unsuccessful. Rather than grieving this (which would not provide a meaningful remedy at this point), the members decided simply to share their experience in the hope that their colleagues who may have questions about their integrity will find this explanation satisfactory. 

Other AUFA members with concerns about interference with the operation of promotion or tenure committees are encouraged to contact AUFA’s executive director, Richard Roach (roachr@aufa.ca). 

  

Bob Barnetson, member 

AUFA grievance committee 

 

OHS Committee Members and Training

OHS Blog.png

At its September retreat, the AUFA executive appointed members to AU’s four joint health and safety committees. These committees (which also have representatives from the employer, AUPE, and CUPE) are required by the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act. OHS committees help:

  •  employers respond to health and safety concerns of workers,

  • develop health and safety policies and safe work procedures,

  • develop and promote education and training programs,

  • participate in work site inspections and investigations,

  • investigate worker reports of dangerous work and refusal to work, and

  • with health and safety orientations for new employees.

The AUFA committee representatives are:

Athabasca: Rhiannon Rutherford and Bob Barnetson

Edmonton: Myreene Tobin and Robyn O’Neill

Calgary: Patrick Lahey

Trail: Ryan Yee

Tim Byrnes: Sherry Tebbenham

The executive appreciates the willingness of these members to serve. The executive also appreciates the long-time service of Doug Kariel, who has stepped down from the OHS committee.

These committees are important because of AU’s poor track-record of complying with the OHS Act and remedying obvious OHS hazards.

AUFA and AUPE are cooperating to host a lunch-hour OHS presentation on the Athabasca campus next week. This training is intended to remedy the poor-quality OHS training provided by the university this summer. It will focus on explaining what OHS rights workers have and how workers can meaningfully exercise those rights at AU.

The presentation will take place from 12-1 in Governing Council Chambers in Athabasca on Monday, October 21. There will NOT be a teleconference or Adobe Connect option. If there is demand, the presentation can be repeated at other AU sites.

Additional training specifically for OHS committee members will be provided through the Alberta Workers’ Health Centre over the course of the year.

Jolene Armstrong

President