Analysis of University of Lethbridge Settlement

The University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) recently ratified a new settlement following a lengthy strike. This blog post provides an overview of the ULFA settlement. Overall, this settlement extends the public-sector and PSE wage pattern but with some additional monetary and language improvements.  

Term and Money 

This four-year deal has a term of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2024. The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for all salaries and grids is as follows: 

July 1, 2020:	0%
July 1, 2021:	0%
July 1, 2022:	0%
April 1, 2023:	1.25%
December 1, 2023:	1.5%
Additional increase December 1, 2023:	0.5% (not guaranteed)

The additional increase scheduled for December of 2023 is contingent upon the province achieving a real GDP for the 2023 calendar year that is at or above 2.7% as of February 2024. If this condition is met in February of 2024, U of L will retroactively apply an additional 0.5% COLA to December 1, 2023. If this condition is not met, then no additional increase will be forthcoming.  

This means the ULFA settlement could see an (uncompounded) COLA increase of between 2.75% and 3.25% over its four-year term. Even with the addition of gain-sharing payments, this settlement will not maintain the purchasing power of ULFA salaries over time. For example, year-over-year inflation as of January 2022 was 5.1%.  

The ULFA settlement matches the COLA agreed to by AUPE for its government services bargaining unit, the Mount Royal Faculty Association (MRFA) settlement from late February, and the Association of Academic Staff: University of Alberta (AASUA) from early March. This appears to be the current “secret’ financial mandate issued the government. 

Extra Compensation 

In addition to the COLA settlement, ULFA was able to negotiate some additional changes. Key changes that have clear monetary implications include: 

• Grid floors rise: Effective July 1, 2022, sessionals will see an 8% increase to the minimum stipends. Assistant and associate professors and some librarian grids will see a 10% increase to their grid floor. Assistant professor and one category of librarians will also see a 2% increase in salaries.  

• Benefits: The employee and family assistance plan will be extended to cover sessional and term staff. A flexible benefit spending plan of $250 per year for all members except sessional or term staff was created. 

The value of this additional compensation is unclear. Additional compensation in non-salary form is also a feature of the AASUA, MRFA and United Nurses of Alberta deals.  

Language 

There were a significant number of language changes which vary across categories of employees. Of relevance to AUFA members include improvements in equity language that include: 

• An expansion of the definition of service to better recognize work often done by members of equity-seeking groups, 

• A larger equity committee with clearer terms of reference and purpose, 

• A requirement to perform regular EDI studies, including pay equity studies, with redress of inequities normally within 12 months, 

• Clearer language on what medical information is required for an accommodation, and 

• New Indigenous evaluation language. 

You can read the full ratification package online.  

ULFA and the U of L also negotiated a returned-to-work protocol (a common thing after a strike). This protocol includes Board agreeing to allow ULFA members to purchase their pensionable service during the period of the strike as well as the Board agreeing to pay travel, professional, and research/grant expenses incurred during the strike. The U of L also agreed to destroy all surveillance data collected during the strike, and that ULFA members will face no strike-related disciplinary measures, reprisals, or legal action. 

Analysis 

The ULFA agreement provides a cost-of-living increase of between 2.75% and 3.25%. This mirrors the provincial and PSE wage pattern (and the government mandate). This is the same deal that AU offered AUFA on February 28 after filed for mediation. Additional compensation, in the form of benefits, grid, and salary improvements, adds to the overall improvement of compensation. 

ULFA also appears to have achieved some language improvements, particularly around equity issues. Notably, the ULFA deal does not appear to contain any of the massive language rollbacks that AU is trying to push on AUFA members.  

To get this deal, ULFA was required to strike for approximately 40 calendar days. The U of L was not available to bargain for the first 23 calendar days. One way to read this delay by the U of L is as a form of punishment for ULFA striking.  

Social media comments by ULFA members also suggest that the government was very much involved in the structure of the eventual agreement. This includes reports that the U of L negotiator had to call to get permission from the government to agree to certain outcomes. Whether this was actually the case or whether this was some sort of elaborate “talking to the manager in the back” ruse is unclear. 

ULFA’s language improvements likely reflect that, in order to get ULFA to accept the government’s lousy wage-mandate, the U of L had to agree to some of ULFA’s other proposals. Time will tell if AU prefers this option to a work stoppage. 

Jason Foster, Chair 

AUFA Bargaining Committee 

Bob Barnetson, Chair 

Job Action Committee 

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 Update: AU finally tables opening offer

The parties met to bargain on January 21. After months of pressure from AUFA, AU finally presented their monetary proposals. This post will outline the major items in their proposals and offer an analysis. You can find a copy of the employer’s full monetary offer here.

Their proposals can be grouped into two categories. First, they offer some general monetary items. These include:

• A four-year agreement, expiring June 30, 2024

• No cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) over the life of the contract (0%, 0%, 0%, 0%)

• Changes to the probation and promotion rules and process (not fully specified at this time)

• Restricting the right to appeal merit increment decisions to academic staff members only

The second group of proposals include sweeping changes to Research and Study Leave:

• Eliminating the right of professional staff to take research and study leave (existing banked days would be honoured)

• Renaming research and study leave to “sabbatical”

• Reduce academic staff’s remuneration while on research and study leave to 90% of salary

• Increase the time before eligibility for research and study leave from three years to six years

• Require that research and study leave be for a 12-month period only and capping accrual to a maximum of 12-months

• Require that upon completion of research and study leave, staff members must “present” outcomes to the university community

• Require staff members returning from research and study leave to commit to remaining in the employment of AU for a period of time equal to the leave or else repay salary paid during the leave (proportionate to the time not worked)

• Make approval of research and study leave conditional to “operational requirements”

There are a number of other minor and ancillary changes which won’t be discussed in this post. In addition to receiving AU’s proposals, AUFA presented a counter-proposal on Article 8 (Grievance Procedure), but the parties did not discuss it. An analysis of the key items of AU’s proposals will be offered below.

Zero Wage Increase

AU is proposing that AUFA members take another four years without a COLA increase. This proposal would mean AUFA members would go seven consecutive years with no COLA increase. For context, Statistics Canada reports that inflation was 4.8% in 2021. Notably, the offer is below where many other public sector agreements are landing regarding wages. In their presentation, AU indicated that they could have proposed rollbacks but chose not to, implying that AUFA members should be thankful.

The AU team asserted that AU is in a difficult financial situation at the moment. The parties have not yet discussed the wage proposal, but the AUFA team will express skepticism at this claim when the opportunity arises. AU has been mostly spared from government cutbacks compared to other institutions in the province. While enrollments are currently down, they are down from record highs during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Plus, AU has a track record of mid-year reports of deficits only to come out at the end of the fiscal year with surpluses.

That AU’s opening proposal is significantly lower than agreements elsewhere suggests to the AUFA team that AU’s offer is not reflective of the current provincial government secret mandate and they are seeking additional sacrifices from AUFA members. AUFA will be offering a counter-proposal soon.

Changes to Research and Study Leave

AU proposes sweeping changes to research and study leave, which they propose be re-named to sabbatical. By far, the most significant change is to remove from professionals the right to take research and study leave. This proposal is a continuation of their persistent attacks against AUFA’s professional members. In this bargaining round, AU is proposing to revamp professionals’ promotion and performance review process, remove professional freedom from the agreement, and lower the requirement for laying off professionals. On Friday, AU added to this list removing professionals’ right to appeal not receiving a merit increment.

During bargaining, AU’s team has regularly diminished professionals’ role at AU. AU’s bargaining lead, external lawyer Chantel Kassongo, described professionals’ rights in the collective agreement as “outliers”. They believe that professionals at AU do not deserve research and study leave, professional freedom, or layoff protection. The AUFA bargaining team will continue to defend our professional members against this attack.

AU’s proposed changes also negatively impact academics. Academic staff on leave will only receive 90% of their regular salary, a significant pay cut. AU justifies this by claiming it is an attempt to “incentivize” academics to seek out external funding for their leaves. This claim conveniently forgets that most funding agencies forbid applicants from collecting salary from their grant. Unless AUFA members were to commit fraud, this proposal is simply another salary cut.

Other changes will require AUFA members to wait longer (six years) for each sabbatical, limit the accrual of sabbatical leave, and remove the flexibility of determining the length of sabbatical. The new reporting and return-to-service requirements also place new, unnecessary burdens on members.

Academic Promotion and Tenure

AU also presented a suggestion regarding the reform of academic promotion and tenure (Article 3). They did not present specific language, but instead offered an overview of a possible direction for change. The parties had a productive discussion about the ramifications of such a suggestion.

AU suggested creating a “Faculty Evaluation Committee” responsible for handling probation and promotion applications, and possibly also handle merit increment and research and study leave decisions. This would centralize many of the decisions that currently take place in a decentralized fashion. AU argues it would also make it easier to implement consistent standards. AUFA raised concerns about how a central process might affect equity and recognition of diverse approaches to research and publishing.

Also, they presented the possibility of merging the tenure and promotion processes for assistant professors (i.e., requiring assistant professors to apply for both at the same time). At present, most assistant professors are able apply for early promotion, which also confers tenure. The AUFA bargaining team sees both pros and cons to such a reform. Finally, AU floated granting tenure to newly hired full professors at the time of hire.

The discussion was wide-ranging and AUFA team members asked many questions and raised concerns, including how the proposal might affect issues of equity. The discussion was limited by the lack of detail provided – the AU team was not in a position to answer many questions and, with issues such as this, the devil can lies in the details. The next step will be for AU to table specific language regarding their proposal.

The AUFA bargaining team recognizes issues related to tenure and promotion of academic members are complex and that AUFA members may hold diverse views about how the process should be structured. We also recognize that the lack of detail to date makes it difficult to offer a clear assessment. Members are welcome to offer their feedback on this matter.

The parties meet again on January 31. As always the AUFA bargaining team will keep working to find a fair deal for AUFA members.

Jason Foster

Chair, Bargaining Committee

Bargaining Update

The AUFA bargaining team met with AU on December 8 for a round of negotiations. Bargaining had also been scheduled for November 30, but was cancelled at the last minute due to a family emergency for one of the AU team members.

Once again, AU refused to provide their monetary proposals. Instead, the parties discussed two employer counter-proposals and one new employer proposal, which took half a day. When AUFA suggested using the afternoon to discuss the employer’s monetary proposals, the employer refused. The employer offered no explanation for withholding its monetary proposal. The day ended early as a result.

The parties did sign off on one proposal. The employer presented a proposal on Article 16 (Other Leaves) to remove gender-based language regarding eligibility for maternity and parental leave. AUFA agrees this is a positive step and agreed to the new language. The parties had earlier agreed in principle to make the entire collective agreement gender neutral and to address that issue later in the process. Due to that prior agreement, this proposal was unnecessary and duplicative. AUFA’s bargaining team suspects this proposal was just a stalling tactic to further delay the employer providing its monetary offer.

AU presented a counteroffer to AUFA’s proposal on Article 25 (Occupational Health and Safety). Essentially, AU is offering to abide by the OHS Act (which it already must do by law). AU’s counter proposal falls far short of what AUFA is looking for. AUFA is seeking to ensure our members’ safety rights are codified in the collective agreement so they cannot be eroded by changes in legislation. (The UCP recently made changes to OHS legislation that has reduced members’ safety rights.)

AU also amended its original proposal on Article 4, which deals with appointment, probation, performance of duties, and promotion for professionals. The new proposal makes a few tweaks to their first offer, but leaves intact its core trade-off of reducing the probationary period to one year in exchange for a series of concessions, including removing the probation review process and the right to appeal position classification decisions through the collective agreement and giving the employer the right to dismiss anyone on probation at any time for any reason. A shorter probationary period benefits AUFA members but AU’s changes would make the probationary process unfair.

AUFA had offered 11 dates that it was available to bargain in January, but AU only agreed to January 21 and 31. In addition to growing frustration at the lack of AU’s full opening offer (after 8 months of bargaining), AUFA is concerned that the employer’s unwillingness to provide bargaining dates is a further effort by AU to avoid concluding bargaining in a timely manner.

If bargaining reaches impasse, the next step will be formal mediation. If mediation is unsuccessful, then AUFA will need to hold a strike vote by the membership. The exact timing of any strike vote is contingent upon too many factors to provide a firmer date than the spring, but the Job Action Committee has been instructed to be ready to strike as early as March 15.

Jason Foster

Chair, AUFA Bargaining Committee