Know your contract: Discipline

Over the past twelve months, there have been 12 disciplinary investigations of AUFA members under Article 7 of the collective agreement. In past years, there were between 1 and 3 such investigations. This seeming increase is largely the result of Human Resources moving from informal processes to more formal ones. Although formal investigations are nerve-wracking, they ensure that investigations follow the rules in our Collective Agreement. 

The above chart breaks down status of discipline cases that were active in the past year. Of the twelve cases over this past year, three have resulted in discipline thus far.

Investigation: Article 7.3

When the employer wishes to investigate a potential problem with an AUFA member, they must follow the rules set out in Article 7 to conduct the investigation. It is up to HR to determine what is worthy of investigation or not. If HR wishes to commence an investigation they must:

• Inform the AUFA Executive Director.

• Inform the member, and ensure they understand their right to union representation.

To conduct the investigation, HR will use either an HR officer, or hire an external contractor. An initial meeting is held to discuss the allegations with the member with a union representative present. The investigator will then normally conduct interviews with affected parties within the workplace and gather evidence to determine what happened. 

During the investigative process, Human Resources may elect to place a member on paid leave. This typically occurs only with with more serious allegations. It is important to understand that members subject to this process have not been found guilty of anything, and they are not being “disciplined” (even if the investigation may feel that way). Rather, the employer is investigating a potential problem, and they have to conduct the investigation to find out if the problem is real.  

Discipline: Article 7.5

At the conclusion of an investigation, Human Resources will receive a report from the investigator, and decide whether to proceed or not with imposing discipline. If Human Resources determines that corrective discipline is necessary, Article 7.5 allows the employer to do one of the following:

• A written warning on the employee’s file.

• Denial of certain rights.

• Suspension with pay.

• Suspension without pay.

• Termination with cause.

The employer normally imposes progressive discipline, where initial discipline is a milder form and, if the misbehaviour persists, corrective actions become increasingly severe. If there is a very serious infraction, however, the employer may issue suspension or termination on a first offence.

If the employer decides discipline is not warranted, the investigation concludes without discipline.

Appeal: Article 7.7

Members have a right to request the withdrawal of discipline from the University President. If the President declines (which they have always done), the member can then request an appeal.

AUFA has strong appeal language which sends disciplinary decisions to a panel of three people. AUFA choses one, AU choses the other, and the third is elected by the two panel members. The panel does not have to be internal, allowing either side to choose legal counsel for an appeal. Per our contract, the employer must pay for the panel, which may be extremely expensive for the employer.  

Members who were placed on leave during an investigation may, at the employer’s discretion, remain that way until an appeal is heard. The penalties of termination and suspension without pay are held in abeyance until the appeal is complete and a decision rendered. Appeal results that follow process properly are binding.

Analysis

Investigations have been informally referred to as “disciplines” in the past, which can create unnecessary worry for affected members. Discipline only takes place after an investigation, if the employer decides to impose one of the penalties set out in Article 7.5. Most investigations do not result in discipline. It is important to understand that if you are under investigation, you are not being punished by the employer.

AUFA has received several questions from members concerned that disciplinary cases may be disproportionately affecting racialized members. Although we do not have equity data on our membership to compare the cases to the total population, we’ve observed the following:

• 75% of Article 7 cases affected white members. This is inclusive of both investigations and disciplines.

• The remaining 25% were for members who were Black, Indigenous, or people of colour.

• Of the three cases that resulted in discipline (one was withdrawn), two of the three affected members are white.  

More reports to the membership on cases in the grievance file will be forthcoming with additional contract analysis in the coming months. 

Dave Powell

Grievance Lead

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

Know your contract: AUFA health benefits

Several AUFA members have inquired about the health benefits provided under AUFA’s collective agreement in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. This post summarizes key benefits relevant to COVID-19 available to AUFA members with probationary or continuing regular appointments. A full listing of benefits is available on the HR website.

Sick Leave (Article 16.5)

AUFA members are entitled to six months of short-term illness leave every year. During this time, members receive full pay and regular benefits. If you are accessing sick leave, you should notify your supervisor and record your sick leave in your time sheet.

HR may request proof of sickness when a worker is on sick leave (typically a note from a medical professional), although this request is uncommon for short leaves associated with transient illnesses. Given the increased demand on the medical system during the pandemic, AU appears to be relaxing its requirement for medical notes.

Long-term Disability Leave (Schedule B)

AUFA members whose illness exceeds 6 months must apply for long-term disability leave, presently provided through Manulife Financial. Long-term disability provides income replacement at 70% of your monthly salary to a maximum of $7000 per month. This income is taxable.

Health Benefits (Schedule B)

AUFA extended health benefits are presently provided by Blue Cross. They include private hospital rooms (where available) and drug coverage on a reimbursement basis. AUFA members also have dental and vision benefits as outlined in this summary.

Mental Health Benefits (Schedule B)

Our Blue Cross health benefits includes coverage of counselling services provided by counsellors who are chartered psychologists, clinical psychiatrists, or hold a master of social work. The benefit provides to a maximum of $1500 per year. The Psychologists Association of Alberta has a referral service for individuals seeking a counsellor in their area.

Compassionate Care (Articles 16.8 and 16.1)

AUFA members are entitled under Article 16.8 to 8 weeks of unpaid leave to provide emotional support, arrange health care, or provide health care to a family member at significant risk of death. During this time, the employee must continue to pay the same portion of benefit and pension premiums as if they were at work.

That said, AUFA members can request of their supervisors, and supervisors may grant (under Article 16.1), a leave of absence with or without pay for leaves not covered explicitly by other articles. In the past, supervisors have granted paid leave to members providing medical aid and support to family members who are quite ill but not at significant risk of death.

Bereavement and Family Medical Leave (Article 16.1.3)

AUFA members are eligible for leave with pay for “making arrangements for care of” family members who are ill. AUFA members are also eligible for leave if there is a death in a staff member’s family or to attend a funeral of a relative or friend.  These leaves are of variable length and can be arranged with your supervisor. Leaves beyond 3 days require the approval of your executive officer.

Death Benefits (Article 23 and Schedule B)

AUFA have life insurance coverage presently provided by Manulife Financial. If you die while employed by AU, your named beneficiary or estate will be paid two times your annual salary to a maximum of $300,000. AU will also pay out twice your monthly salary to your named beneficiary. Forms to change your beneficiaries can be accessed online.

The Universities Academic Pension Plan provides two options in the event of your death before retirement. If you have a spouse, your spouse is entitled to receive a pension as if you retired the day before you died. If you are under 55, your spouse is entitled to a lump sum transfer payment into a Locked In Retirement Account (LIRA) in lieu of a pension. If you do not have a surviving spouse at the time of death, your last-named beneficiary or your estate is entitled to a payout of your pension in cash.

Questions about benefits can be directed to the AUFA office at aufahq@aufa.ca or 780 675-6282.

Jolene Armstrong, President