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
Concordia strike ends in faculty victory
Ten days ago, 89% of the Concordia University of Edmonton Faculty Association (CUEFA) voted in favour of a new collective agreement, bringing Alberta’s first post-secondary strike to a quick and positive conclusion after 11 days. This blog post outlines what we know about the settlement, and provides some analysis for AUFA members. It concludes with an update on bargaining at Lethbridge and AUFA strike preparations.
Concordia Settlement
Through a combination of solidarity within Concordia and widespread support from outside the institution, CUEFA made crucial gains in both workload and salary. It was also able to retain member ownership over intellectual property, and to avoid rollbacks to disciplinary language.
Concordia’s administration agreed to reduce annual instructional loads for teaching faculty by 25%, from 8 courses to 6 courses, thereby enabling CUEFA members to manage increasing university expectations around research and research outputs.
Like our members, CUEFA members receive annual merit increments (the CUE term is “steps”) based on satisfactory job performance reviews. These annual increments continue to operate under the new agreement. The CUEFA deal also contains two types of additional wage increases during the four years of the agreement (July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2025).
Inflationary adjustments: Over the four years of the agreement, salaries and grids will be adjusted as follows: 0%, 0%, 0% and 1.5%.
Salary adjustments: On both of July 1, 2021 and January 1, 2023, CUE members will receive an additional (or “bonus”) salary increment.
Together, the inflationary and salary adjustments in this agreement will improve CUEFA members’ salaries by 4.39% to 6.85% (varies by member). CUEFA members will also continue to receive their normal annual salary increments.
Analysis
The CUEFA agreement will result in immediate salary increases greater than the increase contained in the autumn AUPE government services deal (2.75% to 3.25%). The AUPE deal appears to match the current provincial mandate in PSE.
That said, as important as CUEFA’s salary gains are, they’ll still likely result in a modest net loss of CUEFA members’ purchasing power over the life of the agreement. Alberta inflation from January to December, 2021 was 4.8%. Inflation is projected at 3% in 2022 and 2.5% in 2023.
Further, while it is important to note that monetary gains in the CUEFA deal increase member salaries, the top step of the CUEFA salary grids only move up 1.5% (in the fourth year of the deal). That is to say, the top of the CUEFA grid does not move up with inflation.
What this means is that the purchasing power of the maximum salary that CUEFA members can earn will be significantly eroded by inflation. For unions (like AUFA) that have a defined-benefit pension plan, stagnant grids also reduce the value of members’ eventual pension benefits (because the maximum annual salary is lower). To avoid such outcomes, most unions seek increases that apply to both salaries and salary grids. For example, AUFA’s opening offer is a 3% increase to salaries and grids in each of the proposed three years of the deal.
Overall, CUEFA resisted what would have been devastating rollbacks, and won significant and immediate gains for its members. CUEFA’s circumstances were slightly different than those facing AUFA. For one thing, Concordia is a private institution, and therefore was not bound by secret government mandates. And for another, Concordia is rolling in cash.
Acknowledging those differences, the CUEFA strike tells us that it is possible to make big gains if a faculty association is prepared to strike. It also tells us that, if we’re not prepared to fight, we will be stuck taking rollbacks.
CUEFA applied operational, financial, and reputational pressure to Concordia to get a deal. The strike forced administrators to cancel all classes, and, consequently, lose out on tuition revenue and suffer significant reputational harm. Strike support from groups of Concordia students (although notably not from the students’ union) intensified the reputational pressure.
AUFA’s Job Action Committee is presently exploring the forms of pressure AUFA can exert on AU to reach an agreement. For example, AU’s sponsorship of the Tenth Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning in Calgary from September 14 to 16 presents several opportunities to exert reputational pressure on AU.
Mediation unsuccessful at Lethbridge
Meanwhile, the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) announced Monday night that formal mediation with the University of Lethbridge had concluded without a deal. The mediator declined to recommend a settlement because the parties were too far apart.
The conclusion of mediation triggers a 14-day “cooling off” period (during which time the parties can continue to bargain if they wish). At the end of the cooling off period (February 1), the union can apply to take a strike vote. Once ULFA members have authorized a strike, a strike can begin at any time with 72 hours notice.
A strong strike vote can sometimes result in renewed bargaining as the employer confronts the possibility of a strike. At Concordia, a strike vote triggered movement by the employer on workload language. Nevertheless, a strike was still necessary for the employer to agree to reasonable salary improvements and a complete withdrawal of unfair language rollbacks.
AUFA bargaining
At Wednesday’s AUFA strike prep meeting, 283 attendees (65% of members) received a brief update on bargaining. Two items of note from the meeting are:
Vote on picketing plan: An electronic membership vote on the proposed picketing plan passed. There were 259 votes cast (~59% of the membership), with 206 in favour, 20 opposed and 33 abstentions. Discounting abstentions, 206 of 226 is 91.2% in favour. JAC will now move forward with strike planning.
Essential Services Agreement: On January 4th, almost 4 months after AUFA applied for an essential services agreement (ESA) exemption, AU finally agreed to AUFA’s proposal. AUFA and AU are currently completing some paperwork on that matter. AUFA hopes an ESA exemption will be issued in early February. Receiving an ESA exemption allows AUFA or AU to apply for formal mediation. Formal mediation is one of the last steps before AUFA is able to proceed to a strike vote. The timing of such a vote is uncertain but the Job Action Committee is working towards a March 15 strike-readiness deadline.
Toronto-area flying picket
AUFA members in Toronto are organizing a flying picket. If you are interested in participating in such a picket during a strike or lockout, please email torontoaufa@gmail.com.
If you are an AUFA member outside of Athabasca, Edmonton, Calgary, and Toronto who is interested in organizing a local picket during a strike, please contact Bob Barnetson (barnetso@athabascau.ca).
Strike Callers Wanted
The Membership Engagement Committee is recruiting 40 AUFA members to act as callers during any upcoming work stoppage. Callers would be responsible for making weekly phone calls to other AUFA members to check in with them, pass on information, and solicit feedback.
Time spent calling would count towards a member’s weekly strike service. If you are interested in volunteering, please contact Rhiannon Rutherford (rhiannon.rutherford@athabascau.ca). Half-day caller training sessions will be held February 11 (almost full) and repeated on February 18. This workshop is open to all AUFA members and does not obligate you to participate as a caller.
Jason Foster, Chair
Bargaining Committee
Bob Barnetson, Chair
Job Action Committee
Designation Update
A recurring issue AUFA has faced is AU’s efforts to carve out members from AUFA’s bargaining unit. This process is referred to as ‘de-designation’. De-designation was the most frequently mentioned issue in AUFA’s spring member engagement survey.
This blog summarizes the issue for new AUFA members and provides an update on where matters stand.
What is Designation?
Designation is the power given to the Board of Governors in the Post-Secondary Learning Act to determine which individuals or positions are considered to be academic staff members. These individuals and positions then comprise the membership of the faculty association bargaining unit. This arrangement is different than almost every other union, wherein the workers choose which union they wish to represent them.
Under AU’s 1983 designation policy, all AU employees whose jobs are categorized as academic (i.e., assistant, associate, and full professors as well as academic coordinators) or professional (e.g., library, facilities, IT, registral, course production, and administrative staff) were designated as academic staff members and, thus, members of AUFA.
The result is a bargaining unit that has a much broader membership than is common in bricks-and-mortar universities. This was, in part, a reflection of AU’s unique model: quality distance education is a collaborative effort, with many individuals contributing to the success of a course or program. It also reflected AU’s relatively small size and he need for a critical mass of workers to make a union viable.
2020 Policy Change
In late 2019, AU informed AUFA that AU would be reviewing its designation policy. The changes AU first proposed would have immediately removed approximately two-thirds of the AUFA members from the union. This included academic coordinators, deans, associate deans, managers, and all professional staff. It is unlikely AUFA would remain financially viable as an independent union with such a catastrophic loss in members.
AU never provided a credible explanation for this radical change. The most likely explanation is that AU is seeking to destroy AUFA’s strike threat by removing as many members as possible. In the long-term, this would result in worse salaries and benefits for the remaining AUFA members, as well as for the de-designated staff (see below for a more detailed explanation of the impact of being de-designated).
Throughout 2020, AUFA members applied pressure to AU to walk back these changes. This pressure included petitions, letters, emails, a public campaign, picketing, and, ultimately, organizing a transfer credit boycott threat. A revised policy was approved in September 2020. Shortly thereafter, AU president Neil Fassina departed for a lower-paying job at a community college for reasons that he declined to explain.
AU’s new designation policy created a process by which AU can de-designate AUFA members. A strict interpretation of the new policy would make it possible for AU to reduce AUFA’s membership to research-based professors only (approximately one third of its present size).
Under the procedure associated with the new policy, AU must identify any positions it seeks to de-designate and consult with the affected unions and staff members. Any resulting de-designations can be challenged at the Alberta Labour Relations Board.
2021 De-designations
In the spring of 2021, AU notified AUFA of its intention to de-designate the five deans, thereby removing them from the AUFA bargaining unit. AU’s business case for this de-designation demonstrated the VPA had little grasp of what the deans do on a day-to-day basis. This de-designation came after years of failed attempts by AU to exclude the deans through a concessions-only bargaining approach.
The IT optimization process also saw AU dis-establish a number of AUFA manager positions and re-create them as excluded manager positions. AU has also been hiring to new positions that, historically, would have been in AUFA, but are now excluded. This “nickel-and-dime” strategy to de-designation is likely designed to be grind AUFA numbers down over time while forcing AUFA to fight as series of small actions.
AUFA has responded to the de-designation of the Deans and IT managers by filing an Unfair Labour Practice complaint with the Labour Board and submitting a grievance to AU on the poorly done IT Re-Organization and removal of some IT managers from the Association. These complaints are presently in process and we will update members as they are heard.
AUFA has also proposed limits on AU’s designation authority in the collective agreement.
What happens if I am de-designated?
If you are de-designated, you would continue to have an employment relationship with AU and similar job duties. You may be represented by a different union or you may become a non-unionized employee.
Your substantive rights as set out in the AUFA collective agreement (e.g., wages, leaves, and benefits) are unlikely to change in the short term. AU may subsequently seek or impose changes to your wages and benefits. It will be easier for AU to impose changes if you are a non-unionized employee.
Your continued access to procedural rights (e.g., the discipline process, probationary and reclassification, and workload appeals) may continue, may continue with changes, or may be discontinued, depending upon the specific right and whether you become a member of another union or become non-unionized. AU may also subsequently seek or impose changes to your procedural rights. It will be easier for AU to impose changes if you are a non-unionized employee.
Professionals
AUFA believes the de-designation of professional staff would result, at least initially, in professionals becoming non-unionized (i.e., excluded) employees. If professionals become non-unionized as a result of being de-designated, they would then have individual contracts of employment operating under the common law.
It is likely that these contracts would initially contain the existing provisions around wages, benefits, and other entitlements. They would also contain some of the procedural rights set out in the collective agreement. It would be up to individual employees to enforce those rights (i.e., pay for their own lawyers) if the employer violated the new individual contracts or sought to impose discipline or terminate them.
Under the common law, the employer could propose changes to the contracts of employment. For example, AU could seek to eliminate sabbaticals or reduce layoff notice in order to reduce costs. AU would need to offer to some consideration (i.e., something of value) in exchange for the contractual change. But what AU offered would not necessarily have to be of much value. For example, AU could offer a few extra days of vacation this year in exchange for eliminating sabbaticals (which are worth about 15% of wages).
If the individual workers did not accept the proposed change, the employer may be able to terminate the workers’ employment by providing whatever termination provisions existed in the contract. This dynamic reflects that the job protection and bargaining power of individual employees is weaker than those of unionized employees. Indeed, this loss of power may be one of the attractions to AU of de-designating professionals.
While AUFA believes the most likely scenario following de-designation is that professionals would become non-unionized employees, it is possible that professionals might be rolled into the AUPE bargaining unit by the Labour Board during the litigation around de-designation. In this scenario, some (possibly all) IT employees would not be eligible to join a union due to specific IT exclusions in the Public Service Employee Relations Act.
If this was the case, AUPE would “take over” the AUFA collective agreement for professionals who were transferred to AUPE. Subsequently, AUPE would need to either negotiate a new agreement for professionals or incorporate professionals into the existing AUPE agreement. It is also possible that professionals might subsequently be organized by another union (again, note the possible IT exclusions). In this case, the other union would then need to negotiate a new collective agreement from scratch.
Academic Coordinators
We believe the de-designation of academic coordinators would result in academic coordinators becoming a part of the CUPE bargaining unit (which presently represents “all non-designated academics”).
In this case, CUPE would “take over” the administration of the AUFA collective agreement for academic coordinators. Subsequently, CUPE would need to either negotiate a new agreement for academic coordinators or incorporate academic coordinators into the existing CUPE agreement.
AUFA expects that AU would seek to reduce the rights and entitlements of academic coordinators during any subsequent collective bargaining. It is unclear if CUPE would be able to maintain academic coordinators’ current rights and entitlements in the face of aggressive AU bargaining. A review of wage settlements at AU shows that CUPE wage settlements have significantly lagged behind AUFA settlements.
Deans and Managers
AU previously indicated that it desired to de-designate deans, associate deans, and managers (although AU walked back the associate dean exclusion). AUFA believes that, if AU de-designated these positions, they would become non-unionized (i.e., excluded) employees. Any excluded employees would have individual contracts of employment operating under the common law.
Similarly to the professionals (above), these contracts would initially contain existing provisions around wages, benefits and other entitlements. They would also contain some of the procedural rights set out in the collective agreement. It would be up to individual employees to enforce those rights, and the employer could then propose changes to the contracts of employment or seek to terminate them.
It is not perfectly clear if terminated deans and associate deans would have a right of return to their faculty positions under the AUFA agreement. AUFA suspects a return would be possible under the current agreements in place for deans and associate deans. AU has repeatedly refused AUFA’s request to remove a portion of decanal contracts that could allow them to terminate a dean as both dean and professor.
Pensions
AUFA members are currently enrolled in the Universities Academic Pension Plan (UAPP). We expect that all contributions made by AUFA members prior to de-designation would be protected and de-designated AUFA members would be eligible to receive a pension based upon these contributions.
It is unclear whether AUFA members would continue to be eligible to be members of UAPP if they are de-designated. UAPP’s pension agreement (page 102) indicates that AU employees who are eligible to be members of UAPP comprise:
Academic staff (as that term is defined in the Universities Act), executive, management, and supervisory employees of Athabasca University (as those terms are defined by Athabasca University and filed with the Plan Sponsors) … (p. 102)
Academic coordinators and professionals who are de-designated would not likely be eligible to continue in the pension plan. By contrast, deans and professionals with the title of director or manager may still be eligible for UAPP membership based on the management and supervisory categories above. The newly excluded managers in the IT department have remained on UAPP for this reason.
It may be that AU would make provisions for members ineligible to continue with UAPP due to the proposed policy to join a different pension plan (AU refused to address this during the 2020 consultations.) An important question in any transfer is whether the terms of the pension are comparable (e.g., some pension plans have an 85 factor (age plus years of service) to get a full pension, while UAPP has an 80 factor).
It may also be possible for AU to alter its definitions on file with UAPP to maintain pension membership eligibility for de-designated staff. This is obviously an issue AUFA will be raising when AU begins consulting with AUFA about specific de-designations.
Conclusion
AU’s efforts to de-designate a significant portion of AUFA’s membership has significant consequences. Those AUFA’s members who are de-designated will likely see their terms and conditions of employment worsen. Those AUFA members who remain in the smaller AUFA unit will have less bargaining power and a less effective strike threat so will be more vulnerable to rollbacks.
There is no compelling rationale for any de-designations at AU. The current arrangement has worked well since 1983. The most likely rationale for this is that AU is trying to use its de-designation power to advantage itself at the bargaining table and reduce it labour costs.
AUFA is committed to fighting each de-designation.
Your Turn
The AUFA executive is interested in your feedback on de-designation.
Dave Powell, President
Implications of possible de-designation for AUFA members
Several AUFA members have queried how AU’s proposal to de-designate professionals, academic coordinators, and deans/associate deans would affect these members.
It is very difficult to provide a definitive answer because there are many variables as well as some unknowns (e.g., how AU would behave after de-designation). Still, we can make some educated guesses. This blog post presents our best estimate (given the information available) about the likely effects of de-designation on de-designated AUFA members.
While it is important for members to be aware of the possible consequences of de-designation, it is equally important to highlight that de-designation is not yet a fait accompli. The university’s proposal is extremely concerning, but AUFA members have successfully pushed back against other concerning proposals from AU in the past (e.g., imposing company doctors and gutting our discipline language).
The AUFA executive and the Membership Engagement Committee is committed to fighting AU’s latest union-busting proposal. The AUFA executive will be exploring options in the legal realm (e.g., appealing any decision to the Labour Board), but litigation is no substitute for an active and engaged union membership. Over the coming months, AUFA members will be called upon to participate in collective efforts to prevent the imposition of this proposed policy.
The Big Picture
If you are de-designated, you would continue to have an employment relationship with AU. You may be represented by a different union or you may become a non-unionized employee.
Your substantive rights as set out in the AUFA collective agreement (e.g., wages, leaves, and benefits) are unlikely to change in the short term. AU may subsequently seek or impose changes to your wages and benefits. It will be easier for AU to impose changes if you are a non-unionized employee.
Your continued access to procedural rights (e.g., the discipline process, probationary and reclassification, and workload appeals) may continue, may continue with changes, or may be discontinued, depending upon the specific right and whether you become a member of another union or become non-unionized. AU may also subsequently seek or impose changes to your procedural rights. It will be easier for AU to impose changes if you are non-unionized employee.
Professionals
We believe the de-designation of professional staff would result, at least initially, in professionals becoming non-unionized (i.e., excluded) employees. If professionals become non-unionized as a result of being de-designated, they would then have individual contracts of employment operating under the common law.
It is likely that these contracts would initially contain existing provisions around wages, benefits and other entitlements. They would also contain some of the procedural rights set out in the collective agreement. It would be up to individual employees to enforce those rights (i.e., pay for their own lawyers) if the employer violated the new individual contracts or sought to impose discipline or terminate them.
Under the common law, the employer could propose changes to the contracts of employment. For example, AU could seek to eliminate sabbaticals or reduce layoff notice in order to reduce costs. AU would need to offer to some consideration (i.e., something of value) in exchange for the contractual change. But what AU offered would not necessarily have to be of much value. For example, AU could offer a few extra days of vacation this year in exchange for eliminating sabbaticals (which are worth about 15% of wages).
If the individual workers did not accept the proposed change, the employer may be able to terminate the workers’ employment by providing whatever termination provisions existed in the contract. This dynamic reflects that the job protection and bargaining power of individual employees is weaker than those of unionized employees. Indeed, this loss of power may be one of the attractions to AU of de-designating professionals.
While we believe the most likely scenario following dedesignation is that professionals would become non-unionized employees, it is possible that professionals might be rolled into the AUPE bargaining unit by the Labour Board during the litigation around de-designation. If this was the case, AUPE would “take over” the AUFA collective agreement for professionals. Subsequently, AUPE would need to either negotiate a new agreement for professionals or incorporate professionals into the existing AUPE agreement.
It is also possible that professionals might subsequently be organized by another union. In this case, the other union would then need to negotiate a new collective agreement from scratch.
In either of these cases (AUPE or other union), professionals whose job titles are director or manager would remain non-unionized employees because they are named exclusions under the proposed policy.
Academic Coordinators
We believe the de-designation of academic coordinators would result in academic coordinators becoming a part of the CUPE bargaining unit (which presently represents “all non-designated academics”).
In this case, CUPE would “take over” the administration of the AUFA collective agreement for academic coordinators. Subsequently, CUPE would need to either negotiate a new agreement for academic coordinators or incorporate academic coordinators into the existing CUPE agreement.
AUFA expects that AU would seek to reduce the rights and entitlements of academic coordinators during any subsequent collective bargaining. It is unclear if CUPE would be able to maintain academic coordinators’ current rights and entitlements in the face of aggressive AU bargaining. A review of wage settlements at AU shows that CUPE wage settlements have significantly lagged behind AUFA settlements.
Deans and Associate Deans
AUFA believes the de-designation of deans and associate deans would result in deans and associate deans becoming non-unionized (i.e., excluded) employees. This means deans and associate deans would have individual contracts of employment operating under the common law.
Similarly to the professionals (above), these contracts would initially contain existing provisions around wages, benefits and other entitlements. They would also contain some of the procedural rights set out in the collective agreement. It would be up to individual employees to enforce those rights, and the employer could then propose changes to the contracts of employment or seek to terminate them.
It is not perfectly clear if terminated deans and associate deans would have a right of return to their faculty positions under the AUFA agreement. AUFA suspects a return would be possible under the current agreements in place for deans and associate deans.
Pensions
AUFA members are currently enrolled in the Universities Academic Pension Plan (UAPP). We expect that all contributions made by AUFA members prior to de-designation would be protected and de-designated AUFA members would be eligible to receive a pension based upon these contributions.
It is unclear whether AUFA members would continue to be eligible to be members of UAPP if they are de-designated. UAPP’s pension agreement (page 102) indicates that AU employees who are eligible to be members of UAPP comprise:
Academic staff (as that term is defined in the Universities Act), executive, management, and supervisory employees of Athabasca University (as those terms are defined by Athabasca University and filed with the Plan Sponsors) … (p. 102)
The proposed policy narrows the definition of academic staff to professors only. This suggests academic coordinators and most professionals would not be eligible to continue in the pension plan. By contrast, deans, associate deans and professionals with the title of director or manager may still be eligible for UAPP membership based on the management and supervisory categories above.
It may be that AU would make provisions for members ineligible to continue with UAPP due to the proposed policy to join a different pension plan. It may also be possible for AU to alter its definitions on file with UAPP to maintain pension membership eligibility for de-designated staff. This is obviously an issue AUFA will be raising when AU begins consulting with AUFA about the proposed policy.
What can we do?
We will be hosting two townhall meetings (January 16 in Athabasca, January 17 in Edmonton) from 12-1pm, both with a teleconference option. At these meetings, we will be discussing the ways in which AUFA members can work together to prevent AU from busting the union via de-designation.
In the meantime, we encourage any members interested in contributing to these efforts to contact the Membership Engagement Committee at engagement@aufa.ca.
Bob Barnetson, Member
AUFA Member Engagement Committee