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.  

Spring survey results: Continued distrust in AU executive and strong strike threat

In June, volunteers with AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) completed the sixth membership engagement survey. This survey included the usual climate questions as well as explored issues related to the recently concluded round of bargaining, the jobs in Athabasca issue (which has since become a significant issue), and AU’s implementation of Netskope surveillance software on members’ computers. 

This iteration of the survey was delayed from the targeted April/May timing, which likely impacted response rates. Eighty-two randomly selected members (just under 20% of the membership) completed the call-based survey, with representation across departments and employee types. 

Climate Questions 

Survey callers asked four recurring questions on the general climate at AU. Overall, members report continued distrust in the AU executive, while AUFA’s work is broadly supported. There is an interesting discrepancy between the 39% of members who reported high morale compared to 77% who reported enjoying starting work in the morning. This likely reflects members’ appreciation for the work they do while also reflecting their frustration with their working conditions. 

Looking further at the question of trust in AU’s executive team, there was a slight increase since the last survey (in fall 2021), from 15% to 20% expressing trust, which is still far below the highest rate of 30% who agreed with this question in the very first survey (in fall 2019). There were no clear trends in terms of which member groups are more or less likely to agree or disagree. For example, when analyzing responses based on length of service, new hires reported around the same level of distrust in executive and trust in AUFA as longer-serving staff. 

In the comments provided by members regarding AU’s executive, most expressed strongly negative feelings, with the following emerging as themes: 

• feelings of being mistreated, belittled, or disrespected by the employer  

• dissatisfaction with the communication and information provided to faculty and staff 

• perceptions of mismanagement, ineptitude, or hidden agendas 

• perceptions of a lack of understanding of the university’s culture and values 

• desire for following through with a vote of non-confidence in the current executive 

In terms of factors contributing to these feelings, the employer’s opening position in bargaining featured prominently. Members also spoke about how the various reorganizations at AU—including the IT reorganization and the near-virtual transition—have been and continue to be handled poorly, which is negatively affecting morale.  

Contract Negotiations 

Having narrowly avoided a strike this spring, MEC queried members’ willingness to have withdrawn their labour. The vast majority of members (88%) indicated were likely to have withdrawn their labour during a strike or lockout, with just 6% saying they were unlikely. This reponse suggests AUFA’s strike threat was a credible one. A credible strike threat enhances the bargaining power of the union. 

Members had mixed views about the final contract that was ratified. The largest chunk of repondents (44%) indicated they were “somewhat satisfied”; neutral and “somewhat dissatisfied” responses each received 22%. Very few members indicated they were either very satisfied (5%) or very dissatisfied (about 7%). This distribution of responses suggests that members are feeling rather ambivalent about the settlement.  

Survey respondents provided a wide variety of comments on the contract language, but the issue most members identified as concerning was (unsurprisingly) the loss of Research and Study Leave for professional members. Comments were broadly aligned with the discussion among members during bargaining, which includes broad, but certainly not unanimous, support for this benefit.  

In addition to the RSL issue, cost of living, inflation, and wages were frequently mentioned. Members broadly felt the cost-of-living adjustment was inadequate. Cost of home office was identified as needing to be addressed. 

Jobs in Athabasca 

As previously reported, a majority of respondents (73%) supported AUFA’s current position that, while no current AUFA member should be forced to re-locate, AU should make an effort to hire a portion of new staff to the Athabasca area. MEC also asked if AUFA should take a position on this issue at all, and a majority (67%) agreed that it should. 

Understanding that, as a union, we are often dealing with multiple priorities, MEC also asked about the relative importance of this issue. There was more disagreement on this question, with only 51% of respondents suggesting it was important that AUFA take a position. That is, there seems to be a portion of members (about 15–25%) who think AUFA should take a position and who agree with AUFA’s current position, but who don’t see this issue as a top concern. There were some identifiable differences when analyzing this question in more detail, so it’s worth taking a look at where some of this discrepancy comes from.  

There were some notable differences here when comparing new employees with those who have been at AU for longer. This issue is important to just 31% of employees who have been at AU fewer than 10 years, while 81% of those who have been at AU more than 20 years said this issue was important to them. 

It is also worth noting that support for AUFA’s position on this issue varies widely between faculties and departments, with the strongest support in FB, FHSS, and the IT department, and weakest support in FHD, FST, and other departments. 

Member comments were diverse. Some members noted that requiring candidates live in Athabasca may narrow the applicant pool unacceptably. Other suggested that candidates could be enticed to live in Athabasca through meaningful incentives.  

Some members felt AU’s primary role is to educate students, not contribute to the economy of Athabasca. Other members note that AU’s location was chosen for economic development purposes and there is no necessary conflict between providing online education while having a portion of jobs located in the Athabasca area. 

Other members were concerned that successive Boards and executives had mishandled this issue (primarily by ignoring it) and that the government was intervening due to political pressure. Some members suggested that the university executive should be expected to model a commitment to Athabasca by living in the Athabasca area, at least part of the time. Others suggested rethinking this issue in order to take advantage of the possibilities a rural campus offers.  

While a lot has happened since this survey was conducted in June, the AUFA executive’s open letter points to several ways in which this issue might be resolved in a constructive and mutually beneficial way.  

Netskope and Privacy 

Members were strongly in favour of AUFA taking steps to protect their privacy after AU installed surveillance software called Netskope on member computers without forewarning or data governance. 

Members’ comments provide many insights about their concerns with this program being used on their work computers, with some common themes: 

• It constitutes a breach of privacy. Members feel concerned about this being a breach to their right to privacy, confidentiality, and security in the workplace. 

• It creates a culture of mistrust between workers and the employer, as they feel not trusted and feel spied and surveilled by the employer. 

• Lack of transparency. Members manifested being concerned about not being properly informed on the reasons why this program is being used, about the data that is being collected, and about the implications that this may have for their privacy in the workplace. 

• It jeopardizes research participants’ right to security, anonymity, and confidentiality. Members who manage and storage research data collected among vulnerable populations (including Indigenous, racialized, and those with precarious legal status) think that the tracking of this information jeopardizes the security of research participants and their right to confidentiality and privacy, making researchers to incur in violations of research protocols. 

• Lack of informed consent. Members feel concerned about the fact that the decision to install a program to collects information was made on a top-down manner, without previous consultation, proper notice, or consent. 

• Insecurity in the workplace. Members fear that the information that is being collected can be used to punish those engaged in disputes with the employer. 

• Threat to safety. Members feel unsafe in the workplace, as they have no clear understanding of what type of information is being tracked and collected, and as they have no clear understanding if this information includes family/personal information. 

• It affects productivity and morale, as the feelings of being spied “all the time” discourages engagement with the job. It also discourages the search of information that can be seen as “suspicious” from the point of view of the employer. 

• There are no clear policies and rules governing the use of this software in the workplace. 

The AUFA executive is following up with the employer about the use of this software and the timelines for a privacy impact assessment, but have so far received no new information.  

The survey also asked members about their use of the AUFA website. This feedback has been shared with the communications committee and will help inform future work to improve the website for members.  

MEC extends its thanks to its volunteer callers as well as the members who took the time to answer the survey. The next MEC survey is planned for this fall. If you would like to be volunteer to help with survey calls, please email engagement@aufa.ca. 

Rhiannon Rutherford 

AUFA President

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.

New Member Preliminary Survey Results

In November, AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) sought feedback from new AUFA members about their experiences of joining AU. This short survey was the first step in what will be a deeper look at the needs of new AUFA members.

Thirty-three AUFA members who were hired after January 1, 2019 responded, with an even split between new academic and new professional members. With one exception, the results were similar for academic and professional members. Key themes include:

• New AUFA members did not have enough information to effectively negotiate an offer.

• AU provided inadequate orientation to their jobs and to the organization.

• New AUFA members struggled to self-orient because of inadequate and incorrect documentation and the absence of mentors.

• Social isolation has intensified the challenges faced by new AUFA members.

In the spring, MEC members will be undertaking more in-depth interviews with AUFA members about their onboarding experiences.

Negotiations at Hire

Q1. During your hiring, did you have enough info to negotiate an offer effectively with AU?

The vast majority of members identified that they lacked information during the hiring process, and this affected their ability to negotiate. Negotiations are important because starting salaries are the pivotal factor in life-time earnings.

In their comments, respondents reported that AU would not answer questions, was unwilling to meaningfully negotiate, and refused to provide support to members having to relocate. Members also flagged that, when they became aware that their starting salaries were inequitable, there was no meaningful remedy available to them.

Orientation to Job

Q2. During your first two weeks on the job, were your job specific duties adequately explained to you?

Q3. Do you know the criteria against which your performance will be judged at the end of your probationary period?

In their comments, many respondents emphasized that their orientation to their jobs was inadequate. This included tasks, duties and how their work fit into the organization which was not explained or shifting as time went on. What information was provided was provided in an overwhelming volume without adequate context. Respondents also repeatedly emphasized that organizational documentation was often out of date, they often had no one to ask questions of, and the answers to questions often conflicted (depending upon who one asked).

Orientation to Organization

Q4. Do you know what you need to do to take a few days of sick leave?

Q5. Do you know what your PD account can and cannot be spent on?

Q6. Do you know how to book a vacation?

Q7. Do you know how to get help with IT problems?

In their comments, respondents also identified that their orientation to the organization was inadequate or non-existent. Many struggled to understand their entitlements, actual processes almost never matched written policies and procedures, how different parts of the university worked and interacted were unclear, and they struggled to find anyone who could answer their questions. Over time, new AUFA members navigated processes by trial and error.

Isolation and Workload

In their comments, new professional and academic members noted that the isolation created by COVID and the near-virtual model intensified their difficulties understanding their jobs and the organization. There have been few opportunities to develop informal connections and social networks and AU has made no effort to address this issue.

Staff (mostly professional) also identified rising workloads as a significant problem. These comments are, in part, related to AU’s disastrous IT Optimization process, but workload concerns are not restricted to only IT and course production staff. Enrollment growth, additional job responsibilities or workload volume (often associated with the move to working from home), and delays in staffing were factors contributing to workload problems.

Next Steps

In the spring, the New Member Research Committee will be conducting more in-depth interviews with new AUFA members. A final report is due in June. This report will include identifying areas for improvement for AU (which is primarily responsible for orienting new staff) as well as for AUFA.

As interim measures:

• In June, AUFA posted a new member handbook providing a basic overview of rights, entitlements and processes. Based upon member feedback, AUFA will be reframing this as simply a member handbook in the near future.

• In September, AUFA began phoning all new members on a go forward basis and providing an orientation to the union and the collective bargaining agreement. New or long-serving members who wish to receive such an orientation can email engagement@aufa.ca to set up a call.

• In December, AUFA will be developing a 2022 calendar of important dates for AUFA members.

Your Turn

The New Member Experience Committee would appreciate any further feedback you have on this topic as it prepares to commence interviews.

Corina Dransutavicius, Eloy Rivas Sanchez, Susan Cake, and Bob Barnetson

AUFA New Member Experience Committee

AU Walks out on Mediation over IT Optimization

AUFA has had to deal with multiple grievances relating to AU’s so-called ‘IT Optimization’ strategy, including layoff language forcing members into new jobs, coercive language, and the exclusion of AUFA members from the bargaining unit. Most recently, AU abandoned the mediation that it had proposed to resolve many of these issues.

The IT department, as a result of this upheaval, is in a bad state.

Current State

The problems in IT are complicated, but are broadly categorized into issues with backward planning, unclear job descriptions, inadequate transition plans, and absent training. Normally, completion of a major reorganization would rely on documenting the current state of the department and establishing transition and training plans.

AU instead completed the major reorganization first, and then tried to coax the current state of the department into establishing transition and training plans. The expectation from IT leadership was that this ought to be accomplished in 2 – 4 months.

Not surprisingly, a smooth transition has not happened. As of writing many AUFA members are dealing with multiple jobs, confusing squad assignments, poor communication on training, inappropriate job descriptions, and a lack of management over their old work. This is particularly true with members moved from the Faculty of Business, whose original jobs were not understood at all by the central IT department. There is no indication of progress on resolving these issues. Nothing is documented, and service from the IT department is suffering.

The most recent message to members from IT deputies is that transitions can’t happen until all new hires are complete. This is the third time the goal posts have moved on transition plans, which have only been communicated verbally with no acknowledgement of the past timelines.

IT leadership have thus far refused to acknowledge any problematical issues, and statements from HR and the employer’s legal counsel have reinforced the belief that the IT department is working well, and that staff are happy.

Results from a recent survey sent to IT members last month suggest otherwise.

Grievances and Mediation

AUFA has launched multiple grievances due to problems in the IT department:

• The use of layoff language to force staff into new jobs without consultation

• A “take this job or quit” approach to redeployments

• The exclusion of IT middle managers

• Denial of Research and Study Leave (despite repeated claims all requests will be honored)

• Denial of leave time for AUFA duties (historically always granted)

• A reclassification request that was never processed by HR for two years

• A harassment complaint that was ignored by IT management and HR

Every issue in this list has been forwarded to arbitration. The employer’s lawyer contacted AUFA over the first four issues and requested mediation. AUFA requested VPIT Jennifer Schaeffer attend this mediation.

She refused.

Nevertheless, the first day of mediation was productive. We discussed a potential settlement that would walk back aspects of a grievance in exchange for a commitment from IT management towards documented, accountable solutions for issues in the department. Unfortunately, just one day before the second meeting, the employer pulled out of mediation, claiming entirely unrelated posts on the AUFA blog as a reason. This continues a pattern of the employer refusing to engage in good faith collaborative measures with AUFA, and instead push every issue to arbitration no matter the cost to AU.

Everything is being overruled and nothing is documented

In the new IT department, the average staff member reports to a manager, director, deputy, and then the VPIT. None of these four layers of management appear to have any power within the department; every request related to IT Optimization problems goes directly to the VPIT.

And there it is typically overruled.

There is now a familiar pattern of members raising issues: getting ‘buy-in’ from managers up the chain, followed by a period of awkward silence before news of the rejection arrives.

IT’s hierarchy seems to exist solely to keep staff away from the VPIT who, it’s worthwhile noting, only appears in once-monthly staff meetings where recordings are not shared and questions are not permitted.

There is also a dire absence of documentation in the department. The way the new model works—assurances for training, transition timelines, and so on – is mostly done verbally. New roles such as Technical Lead, for instance, require management-level work from AUFA members, and yet their actual duties were only ever communicated in a brief introductory presentation of the model earlier in the year.

With nothing documented, the promises and timelines from IT management are fluid and can change constantly with no memory to the past. As a result, the department is stuck in place and unable to advance. Without documented plans, accountability, and empowered managers, there is no way forward.

What’s Next?

AUFA will continue to pursue its legal strategy as it brings multiple grievances in IT to arbitration. This is a slow process, and although we hope for a positive outcome, results will take time. In the meantime, the status of the IT department continues to worsen. IT leadership has shown no interest in even admitting to, let alone resolving, issues as they have been repeatedly raised by AUFA and AUFA members in every possible venue.

It takes two parties to negotiate. Going forward, AUFA will continue working with members of the IT department on member-driven solutions to these issues.

Solidarity,

David Powell

AUFA President

The IT Optimization: Stronger through adversity

This is the second part of a two-part blog series on the IT Optimization. For part one, click here.

In our first blog we spoke about the process HR and IT used to force all AUFA members into new jobs as determined by management. This post is about the response from members and fallout.

Survey

One most people accepted their positions, a short survey was sent to the affected IT members for feedback. The questions asked were about the IT optimization treatment of members, communication, meetings, transition, and AUFA representation. The personal dignity question speaks to a repeated statement from Jennifer Schaeffer that her highest priority was preserving the personal dignity of affected staff. The survey was sent to 55 AUFA members, with 38 responding.  

View fullsize

View fullsize

The survey results speak to the general confusion and dissatisfaction from most of the affected IT staff members. Many members left long commentary about their incredible frustration at the process and poor treatment of their colleagues. Most respondents were uncertain about their new positions, rather than upset. This indicates that the resistance was not to the change (a frequent narrative by AU Executive), but to the mechanism of change.

The comments had the following recurring themes:

• The process was stressful, demoralizing, and punitive

• The lack of a transition plan is extremely concerning and speaks to negligence and incompetence by IT senior leadership

• Frustration with AUFA’s limited ability to stop bad redeployments or correct faulty job descriptions

• That communication was non-existent or insulting

• That IT leadership had no respect for their staff

• The process was poorly planned

The full comments, which have been edited to preserve confidentiality, are below.

Building Solidarity

Although some members have been treated well, many others are left confused, alienated, disrespected, and angry. Even members who are promoted or are simply moved into the same job have found this process to be at best confusing and overwrought, and at worst cruel and coercive. However, a bad boss makes for a stronger union.

AUFA members have taken this attack on their rights to self-advocate, talk with each other, share stories, and build a common understanding. This is the foundation of an organized union and common solidarity. The IT Optimization has been one of the most poorly handled major changes in AU history and the result is an angry and motivated membership who have learned that the only way they can come out ahead is by looking out for one another. AUFA members representing each other, and then standing up in tense meetings, letter-writing campaigns, and very tough questions directed at senior management softened this process.  

AUFA approached this process early on in good faith, and trusted IT and HR to handle this humanely and with kindness. That trust was violated. However, when we looked to each other, that trust was rewarded.

Next Steps

AUFA’s work with the IT department will continue as many members are left in confusing, difficult situations and the risk of continued poor treatment and contractual violations is high. As well, we have filed two grievance. The first is on the use of redundancy language, demanding that a full and appropriate position evaluation be granted to anyone who wants it. This will allow the job descriptions to be written with the consultation of the incumbents to ensure the jobs are accurate and fair. The second grievance is on the ‘take the job or resign’ use of redundancy language, and will hopefully prevent redundancy from ever being used again to bypass the hard work of doing a reorganization properly. We have also added the IT Optimization to the Unfair Labour Practice complaint over exclusions during bargaining.

Most importantly, we will continue organizing with and speaking to the IT department and supporting members as they foster a stronger community together. A go-forward model of members representing each other moves power from a small centralized executive into the membership, and is the ultimate goal for a strong, democratic union.

David Powell

President, Athabasca University Faculty Association

The IT Optimization: Move slow and break things

AU recently completed a major reorganization of its IT functions, titled the IT Optimization. Hinted at since Jennifer Schaeffer’s arrival, the optimization was announced in January 2020 and repeatedly delayed until now. This process affected roughly sixty AUFA members and has been autocratic, secretive, and harmful to many people. This is the first of two blog posts discussing the optimization. The second blog post will go over the response from the affected members.

Normally, position changes occur under Article 4.5, which includes the incumbent in the plans to change their job. To avoid this, IT and HR used Article 12.2, redundancy. Despite multiple consultations about the reorganization in 2020, AUFA was not informed that AU would be using redundancy language until the process was formally underway. By using redundancy language, IT could draft entirely new job descriptions in complete secrecy, lay everyone off, and then force staff into whatever job IT management deemed appropriate.

Redundancy is normally invoked when a workplace function is eliminated, leaving the incumbent without any work to do. Under contract, AUFA receives 60 days’ notice to investigate alternatives to severance with HR. At the end of the 60 days, the position is abolished, and any staff let go receive severance.

Members were affected in multiple ways. Many members went through the stressful redundancy process only to find they were moved into the same job. Others found themselves moved into entirely different career paths they did not feel qualified for. Others had their work diminished and insulted through the new jobs. Both promotions and demotions took place. Staff who had spoken extensively with IT directors about their career plans and professional development were almost universally ignored.

The secrecy and refusal to reveal important information to AUFA members approached the bizarre. AUFA met with HR repeatedly to glean information about the reorganization and then communicate it to AUFA members as IT leadership refused to say anything useful. The deadline to apply for managerial jobs was the day before members would be told their future career, leaving people to apply for an excluded job or take the ‘mystery box.’ The deadline to accept the new positions expired before the successful managerial candidates were revealed, forcing members to accept a job without knowing who their supervisor would be.

Despite some or all IT functions in Faculty of Business, Student and Academic Web Services, Library, Finance, and Faculty of Science moving into AU’s central IT unit, there has been no communication about what will happen to the work they were doing. The Deans and Directors of the above areas have received vague assurances that the functions will continue, but transition plans do not appear to exist.

All new positions begin on July 1st. HR has informed all IT staff they cannot continue their old duties. IT leadership have said the transition may take years. The contradiction between HR and IT management has not been resolved.

The handling of managerial positions is particularly troublesome and is detailed here. The fallout of the managerial positions is that six prior managers found themselves demoted or moved into different careers despite years of positive assessments and feedback from IT leadership. Cases involve members applying for an excluded version of their own job and not getting it, or others returning from bereavement leave to find they were facing demotion. If they were bad at their jobs, why did they have no invitation for improvement? If they were good at their jobs, why were they demoted?

A similar process was used with AUPE members in the redeployment. Six AUPE members were offered AUFA positions as an alternative to new AUPE positions, all of which were accepted. Despite these promotions, the members were not offered better salaries beyond the contractual minimum and were all placed on probation – even in a case where an AUPE member was moved into an identical position he had already had for sixteen years. In some cases, the affected members will have lower take-home pay due to a lack of overtime and slightly higher paycheque reductions.

During the redundancy process, all affected members were entitled a single 15-minute meeting with either Ted Erickson or Graeme Denney. A team of six AUFA representatives reached out to all affected members and attended meetings with them. Thanks to powerful self-advocacy on the part of members, the meetings typically went overtime, some by as much as two hours. The meetings were often frustrating or pointless as members were told they had only one meeting and one job offer, and to reject the offer was to resign. After significant pushback, a handful of members received alternate, and in some cases more appropriate, job offers.

Although the 60-day notice period expires today, HR and IT introduced an early date of May 10th to accept the new positions. All members were told if they did not accept their positions by May 10th, they would resign effective July 1st. This has no basis in contract. When AUFA representatives confronted Human Resources about this deadline in a meeting, it was downplayed as a soft encouragement to move the process along, despite it being a clear threat delivered in writing. In the same meeting, HR also claimed that the exclusion of managers was due to them being a ‘named exclusion’ in the designation policy like directors. This is a misreading of AU’s own policy, as managers were only a named exclusion in early revisions and were removed in the final draft.

The impact on affected IT staff varies but in many cases it is severe. AUFA circulated a survey to IT staff and in the next blog post discussing the optimization, the response from the staff in the survey, and how staff organized with each other and pushed back against the worst excesses of this process will be discussed.

David Powell

President

Athabasca University Faculty Association