Bargaining Update: Once more, little progress

AUFA and AU met on January 31 for another day of bargaining. The parties signed off on a couple minor items related to administration of the collective agreement and language reflecting the new bi-weekly pay periods.

AUFA presented a counter proposal on the cost-of-living adjustment. On the previous day of bargaining, AU proposed four years of zero increases. AUFA’s initial proposal, presented 10 months ago, was a 3% increase each year of a three-year agreement.

AUFA’s new amended proposal shifts to a four-year agreement. In the first two years, it asks for increases of 2% and 4% to salaries and grids. This proposal approximately matches inflation these last two years (2020 and 2021). AUFA then proposed that 2022 and 2023 cost-of-living adjustments be tied to Alberta’s consumer price index (CPI).

The goal of the proposal is to ensure AUFA members’ salaries approximately match the increase in the cost of living during the course of the agreement. AU has not formally responded to this proposal, although AU’s bargaining lead, external lawyer Chantel Kassongo, oddly proclaimed the offer to be an “escalation”. This assertion is hard to fathom, given AUFA’s proposal reflects current economic realities plus the passage of time caused by AU’s delay in tabling a monetary offer.

AUFA also tabled counter proposals regarding probation and performance of duties for professionals (Article 4), and on occupational health and safety (Article 25). AU has not yet responded to either proposal.

AUFA also presented concerns regarding the process for making changes to Blue Cross benefit entitlements. Specifically, AU has been refusing to consider changes proposed by AUFA at the joint committee tasked with managing the benefit plan. Article 10 (discrimination and harassment) and Article 17 (Association business) were also briefly discussed without resolution.

A surprising amount of time was spent addressing a technical legal matter. AUFA tabled a notice of estoppel regarding the issue of members performing work not in their job description. An estoppel notice is a legal statement to inform the other party that past practice will no longer apply regarding a specific matter.

AUFA was informing AU that, going forward, AUFA would rigorously apply the terms of the collective agreement regarding members performing work not in their job description. This notice is a legal technicality which does not substantially impact bargaining, and thus should have only taken a few minutes to address. Instead, the discussion took almost an hour and a half, in large part due to persistent questioning from Kassongo.

The dragging out of the estoppel notice discussion and AU’s lack of response to AUFA’s proposals suggest that AU is continuing its strategy of “going slow” in negotiations, which impedes progress toward a new agreement.

No further dates are currently scheduled. AUFA has proposed 12 days in February and March for bargaining. We await a reply from AU.

Jason Foster, Chair

AUFA bargaining team

Bargaining Analysis 4: AUFA’s pay equity proposal

This blog post provides examines some of AUFA’s proposed changes to our equity language. AUFA has made a large number of equity-related proposals, including:

• Improvements to professional freedom.

• Meaningful workload appeal processes.

• A commitment to increasing the proportion of Staff Members from traditionally under-represented groups.

• Recognition of the additional work commonly borne by equity-seeking groups.

• A contractual obligation to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) calls to action.

• Allowing Indigenous academics to select from a broader range of externals during promotion.

• Completion of a pay equity survey every three years.

This post focuses on AUFA’s pay equity proposal.

Current and Proposed Language

Article 10 of the collective agreement prohibits discrimination against AUFA members with respect to salaries and benefits on a list of enumerated personal characteristics. These characteristics include (but are not limited to) gender and race. Article 26 requires AUFA and AU to address equity issues, but does not specifically mention salaries or benefits.

AUFA’s opening proposal seeks to amend Article 26 by adding in this language:

26.2.2 The Employment Equity Committee shall:

d) Complete an analysis of pay equity with specific attention to age, race/ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation among Staff Members within six (6) months of this agreement.

e) Conduct additional analyses of pay equity among Staff Members every third year after completion of the first pay equity analysis.

Inequities in pay revealed by this analysis would then trigger AU’s obligations under Article 10 to take action to remedy them.

This proposal reflects preliminary data analysis that suggests there is significant and pervasive gender inequity in starting salaries for AUFA members. Differences in starting salaries persist throughout one’s career and affect pension income.

Gender Analysis of Starting Salaries

As part of AUFA’s preparation for bargaining, a preliminary analysis of starting salaries was conducted by AUFA President Dave Powell using salary data AU provides to AUFA. There are two important caveats relating to this analysis.

First, the university’s collection of gender data is flawed. The university collects data according to a male/female sex binary. The male/female sex binary denies, delegitimizes and invisibilizes the existence and rights of people who do not conform to its terms. Some people’s gender does not match the sex and gender they were assigned at birth (transgender), some people express genders that are a combination of masculine and feminine (Two-Spirit, gender-non-binary, gender-non-conforming, or genderqueer), and some people do not identify with or express a gender (agender). Proper analysis of pay equity needs to include genders beyond the sex binary.

Second, analysis of pay equity must include gender, as well as age, race/ethnicity, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation as people are systemically paid less according to all these categories. Any pay equity analysis that only considers one category, for example gender, will not account for how systemic colonialism, racism, homophobia and transphobia differently determines employees’ salaries. When gender is the only category that is assessed, white women tend to be the primary or sole beneficiaries of pay equity adjustments. As such, AUFA advocates for a university-wide pay equity analysis that includes all these categories. For this analysis, AUFA used the available data, which is limited to the male/female sex binary category.

AUFA members who were hired between 2017 and 2020 (inclusive) were identified. A small number of known salary outlier cases (e.g., former executives who moved into the AUFA) were removed for the purposes of the analysis. Anonymized data (i.e., starting base salary, start year, faculty, and gender) for the remaining new hires (n=102) was then extracted for analysis. Subsequent data analysis and presentation has been carefully screened to avoid inadvertently revealing anyone’s identity.

A high-level overview of salaries by rank and gender suggested women are often hired at lower salaries than men. In some ranks, there were a very small number of new hires. This makes maintaining anonymity difficult and also raises questions about how representative the data is in those ranks. Consequently, the analysis that follows focuses on the Assistant Professor and Professional C ranks.

The Assistant Professor and Professional C ranks had the most hires (27 and 24 respectively). There were also a significant number of Professional B hires (19). This category was excluded from the analysis because these “new hires” are often long-term AU employees who have been promoted out of AUPE and, thus, bring their salary level with them. In this way, they are not “new to AU” in the same way that are most Assistant Professors and C-level Professionals.

The salary range for Assistant Professors is presently $71,506 to $100,202. Market supplements were excluded from the analysis; there does not appear to be any gendered pattern to the value of market supplements. The salary range for Professional C levels is presently $79,569 to 105,328. Long-service increments extend the Professional C grid to $114,287, but these are not available to new hires.

The table below presents average wages by gender and rank. There are a couple of notable patterns. First, AU hired more women than men in these ranks from 2017-2020. Second, the average starting base salary of women was several thousand dollars lower than that awarded to men.

A couple of methodological notes and caveats are useful here.

• The salaries are averages (means). The median salary is very close to the means in all cases.

• Faculty- and department-level data is not being presented due to concerns about confidentiality. That said, for Assistant Professors, the broad patterns exist across all faculties except FHSS, where women’s and men’s starting salaries are essentially the same.

• There are reasons other than gender for the assignment of starting salaries (e.g., experience, negotiating) that cannot be controlled for given the data AUFA has available to it.

Recognizing these caveats, the pattern in this data suggests AU may be discriminating against women in terms of starting salaries. If AU is committed to the principles of employment equity, this requires further investigation, which accounts for genders beyond the sex binary, and which simultaneously accounts for age, race/ethnicity, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation. Consequently, AUFA has proposed in bargaining periodic joint analyses of pay equity on the basis of gender as well as other identity factors such as age, race/ethnicity, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation.

The pattern revealed in this analysis also suggests that AU may be in breach of its obligations under Article 10 of the collective agreement. This issue will be referred to the equity and grievance committees for further discussion.

Your Views

AUFA’s bargaining team is interested in hearing the views of the AUFA membership about this proposal. To that end, we have created a short survey.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

AUFA Grieves Sick Leave Denial

AUFA is currently pursuing a grievance on behalf of a member whose sick leave has been unreasonably denied.

AUFA does not normally discuss the content of individual grievances. With the permission of the member involved, AUFA is making an exception because of the implications of this grievance for all members.

Background

In the summer of 2018, a member’s partner was diagnosed with a second instance of cancer. As a result of this diagnosis, the member developed a serious, stress-related illness. The member’s doctor put the member on sick leave during the autumn of 2018.

In late 2018, the member began to recover from the illness and sought a graduated return-to-work (RTW). When the RTW was requested, AU’s Employee Health Coordinator Darren Schmidtke requested:

...a medical note from [the member’s] doctor indicating any limitations/restrictions or [the member’s] return to work, what [the member’s] return to work would look like (days of the week/hours of the day) and the duration of such.

The member’s doctor provided a note indicating the member could return to work 2 days per week with flexible hours from January 8 to February 8. There were no restrictions on the member’s duties. The member returned to work on January 8.

The member was then notified that HR wanted to speak to the member about the doctor’s note. Sensing something was amiss, the member sought AUFA representation.

First Doctor’s Note Rejected

Article 16.5.4 requires members provide “satisfactory proof” of sickness to qualify for sick leave benefits. In a late January meeting (as the RTW was wrapping up), HR indicated it did not find the doctor’s note adequate (despite the note including the information requested in December).

HR also suggested that the member was not sick, but rather was using sick leave to provide compassionate care to the member’s partner. While the member did provide care for the member’s partner, the member’s medical leave was related to the member’s own illness.

 Schmidtke subsequently asserted:

The medical note in question indicates that [the member] is able to perform all aspects of work functions. It does not provide any reasoning for why days must be flexible, any indication of ongoing medical treatment or support or expected duration of this medical concern or any reasoning why the employee is unable to work the remaining 3 days of the week. It also does not indicate whether the employee is able to work from [the member’s] office or should be working from home.

The note did, in fact, indicate a duration (to February 8). Schmidtke also overlooked that the note did not identify any restrictions on the location of work (the member teleworked during this time, in consultation with the member’s supervisor).

 The other issues (reasoning and treatment) were not part of Schmidtke’s original request and, in AUFA’s opinion, are not information the employer requires to determine if the member is sick or not (and thus entitled to benefits and accommodation). Rather, the note itself comprises satisfactory proof of sickness. In the end, the member agreed to get a second, more detailed note from the member’s doctor in the hoping of avoiding a confrontation that would aggravate the member’s illness.

AU Interferes with AUFA Representation

 AU’s Abilities Management Policy allows AUFA members to request AUFA representation during a RTW accommodation. Some AUFA members seek representation because: (1) they are unaware of their rights; and, (2) they are not able to effectively advocate for themselves (due to the effects of their illness).

After the member agreed to get a second note, AU sent the member the form it wanted filled out. AU cut AUFA out of this communication. When confronted with this denial of representation, Schmidtke indicated:

The university will not share or discuss an employee’s sensitive medical information with anyone except the employee, or with members of the Human Resources team (as required).

The difficulty with Schmidtke’s statement is that the email contained a blank form (i.e., there was no medical information being shared).

Second Note Rejected; Vacation Time Goes Missing

The member provided a second note from the member’s doctor that contained a high-level overview of the symptoms of the member’s medical condition that limited the member’s ability to work full-time from January 8 to February 8.

Coincidentally, the member also queried the member’s available vacation time for 2018/19. The member found that 14 days of vacation leave were missing. Examining the time sheets, the member found that Schmidtke had been docking vacation leave instead of sick days during the member’s return to work. This vacation-leave docking was done without any notice to the member.

 (AU is permitted to use VT to cover periods of time when a member has exhausted sick leave benefits under Article 16.4.6. In this case, the member had not exhausted sick leave benefits. Rather, sick leave was being denied because AU asserted that two doctor’s notes were (somehow) not satisfactory proof of sickness).

AU then rejected the member’s second doctor’s note. It also refused to return the vacation leave, with Schmidtke asserting:

At this time, the vacation days will not be returned to you, as you accepted the remuneration and have access to a pay stub which would have shown the details as to how you were paid over this time period.

However, if your preference is that you want to have your vacation days reissued, please contact your HR Advisor, Seona Noseworthy, and arrangements can be made for you to reimburse AU for the Vacation days paid out to you, and we will have those days added back to your vacation bank.

Schmidtke’s assertion that failing to instantly dispute time sheets (which Schmidtke altered and submitted without notice to the member) somehow negates the grievance is incorrect. There is no requirement for AUFA members to instantly dispute errors on their time sheets. Failing to do so does not mean a member has accepted a violation of the contract.

The Grievance

AUFA grieved the theft of the 14 days of vacation time as well as the denial of the member’s representational rights. AUFA’s settlement offer was the return of the 14 days plus an agreement to allow AUFA representation of members as per AU’s own policy.

The reasons for advancing this grievance are:

1. The member has lost 14 days of vacation pay (>$5000).

2. AU is unreasonably interpreting “satisfactory proof” of sickness.

3. The effect of the vacation loss is discrimination on the basis of disability.

4. AU is interfering in AUFA’s representation of sick members.

Unusually, AU responded to both the informal and formal steps of the grievance in 2 days each. AU normally takes the full 15 and 10 working days for these steps respectively. The grievance (filed with HR Director Charlene Polege) was denied at both steps. A final effort to the settle the grievance with President Fassina (who is the executive officer in charge of HR) was also unsuccessful.

AUFA is currently advancing this grievance to arbitration. At arbitration, AUFA will also be also seeking damages for the violations of the member’s human rights and representational rights.

The Lessons

The grievance suggests several conclusions of relevance to all AUFA members:

1. You cannot trust HR. The job of HR is to advance the employer’s interests (which is usually saving money). HR is not there to support you or administer the collective agreement in an even-handed manner (although, sometimes, that can happen).

2. You need representation in accommodations. AU has recently developed a pattern of poorly handling accommodation and return-to-work issues. You are entitled to (and should seek) representation during any accommodation discussions, if only so you have a witness. You should also record all discussions in writing.

3. You should check your time sheets. This grievance is not the only instance of AU altering time sheets with no notice to AUFA members. If you have been on a sick leave recently, you should check your time sheets to ensure their accuracy. If you find a discrepancy, contact the AUFA office by phone (780 675-6282) or email (aufahq@athabascau.ca)..

4. You should (if possible) decline graduated RTWs. The purpose of gradually returning to work is to give you time to finish healing while adjusting to work again. AU’s tendency to hassle members on RTW suggests that, if your doctor gives you the option of a graduated RTW or staying off sick until you can return to work full time, you should seriously consider staying off sick to avoid making yourself a target. You may wish to print off this blog post and show it to your doctor if the topic comes up.

5. If your spidey-sense tingles, contact your union. AU is much more aggressively managing the employment relationship (e.g., we’ve had 14 discipline cases in the same time period in which we normally have only 1). You are entitled to consult your union about employment issues. Such consultations are confidential and can be made by phone (780 675-6282) or email (aufahq@athabascau.ca).

6. AU does not walk the talk on its I-Care values. While university administrators talk about integrity and respect, they do not live up to these values. Denying an obviously sick employee with two doctor’s notes (and whose partner also has cancer) access to sick leave and then stealing the member’s vacation leave without notice is despicable behaviour. Senior administrators did not correct this behaviour when given the chance. How is that acting with respect and integrity?

7. Company doctors are bad news. During collective bargaining, AU proposed new language allowing it to send members to see company-appointed doctors at HR’s discretion. Company doctors exist to save employers money by denying worker sick leave entitlements. This grievance demonstrates why AUFA should never agree to company doctor language.

 Bob Barnetson, Member

 AUFA Grievance Committee