professional freedom

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.

Bargaining Update: Small Moves But Huge Gulf Remains

On February 28, the AUFA and AU bargaining teams met for a day of regular bargaining in advance of formal mediation. AUFA’s decision to apply for formal mediation seems to have had an impact, as AU came to the table much more focused and with a different tone.

AU presented a full “new” package for consideration. Most of AU’s package remains unchanged from their January 31 position, but there were a few significant changes. This post offers the highlights of the new package. The committee will provide a fuller analysis following another day of bargaining on Wednesday, March 2.

It is noteworthy that AU’s offer was made without prejudice, meaning AU can withdraw this offer at any time and revert to it January 31 position. This is a common bargaining tactic to allow the parties to explore settlement without committing a new position. A party can also use this tactic to apply pressure. For example, if AU and AUFA make progress at the table but then come to impasse, AU can threaten to return to its January 31 position in the hope that AUFA will knuckle under to avoid losing any progress towards an agreement that was made.

AU’s January 21 proposal was for four years of no COLA increases. The February 28 offer saw AU alter its cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) proposal. AU’s proposal is now:

  • July 1, 2020: 0%

  • July 1, 2021: 0%

  • April 1, 2023: 1.25%

  • December 1, 2023: 1.5%

  • An additional 0.5% applied February 29, 2024, retroactive to December 1, 2023, if forecasts for Alberta GDP are above 2.7%

AU’s new proposal matches the agreement AUPE signed for its core government services members and is similar to Mount Royal’s agreement. That said, Mount Royal also made some financial gains in other areas amounting to approximately an additional 1% in members’ pockets (a fuller analysis of the MRU deal will follow later this week).

AU also doubled down on its proposal to make professional staff ineligible for research and study leave (RSL). AU has added a proposal promising to make a one-time payment to professional staff to sign-away their accrued leave days (earlier they promised to honour those accrued days).

Specifically, AU is proposing a one-time payment to each professional who has accrued days owed. They have allotted $2.1 million for this payment. Currently, they propose an equal payout to each eligible member, which amounts to between $8000 and $10,000 (depending upon how many eligible members there are). This proposal expires March 31 if no tentative agreement is reached.

This proposal is a classic employer strategy of dangling short-term cash in trade for a long-term loss. The time limited nature of the offer also suggests it is a pressure tactic to force a quick deal. The AUFA bargaining team believes this offer significantly shortchanges professional members over the long term. At present, professionals earn 2 months of research and study leave entitlements (at 80% of salary) for each year of service. This means a professional with an annual salary of $80,000 would earn roughly $10,666 in RSL leave entitlements each year.

Other changes to AU’s proposal include:

  • AU has tabled specific language to Article 3, which addresses academic appointment, tenure and promotion, and determination of duties. The changes are sweeping and include merging the tenure and promotion processes, and establishing a university-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee mandated to review tenure and promotion applications. AU’s proposal institutes a much more detailed set of criteria for tenure and promotion. They also create a separate tenure process for Academic Coordinators and weaken provisions around determination of duties.

  • AU has offered to withdraw their proposals to amend Article 11, Academic and Professional Freedom, and have resorted to the status quo.

  • AU has offered to accept much of AUFA’s proposal regarding compassionate leave for dying or serious ill family members. They have accepted an extended leave of 27 weeks (which matches current legislative provisions), but still restrict it to risk of death. AUFA will continue to push for a broader scope.

  • AU has offered to withdraw proposals regarding external professional activities, agreeing to maintain status quo.

  • AU has also offered to withdraw a proposal for new language allowing for temporary lay-off of professional staff.

Again, keep in mind this “progress” can be undone at any point because AU has made its offer on a without prejudice basis.

As mentioned, the bulk of their new package retains their existing positions on key issues. AU continues to demand significant concessions from professional staff, including exclusion from RSL leave, stripping access to appeal processes, weakened layoff provisions, and undermining probation review processes. They also retain their cuts to academics’ RSL provisions and continue to reject proposals to improve equity provisions in the agreement.

The parties meet again on Wednesday March 2, where AUFA will present its own renewed full package in an effort to find a deal. Formal mediation is slated to start next week.

On behalf of the bargaining committee,

Jason Foster

Bargaining Committee Chair

Results of Strike and Strike Pay Consultation

In December, the Job Action Committee (JAC) provided AUFA’s Executive with some preliminary recommendations to five strike-related questions:

  • Who will be required to actively participate in a strike?

  • What labour will be withdrawn and what labour will be permitted to continue?

  • How will AUFA allocate strike pay?

  • What strike duties will members be asked to perform?

  • How will we resolve disputes about these issues during a work stoppage?

AUFA’s Executive then sought feedback from AUFA members on those preliminary recommendations.

Nearly 100 members offered up their thoughts. Overall, there was strong support for the recommendations (ranging from 90.5% to 98.9%) and a number of very useful suggestions.

This blog summarizes the responses and indicates some of the changes we’ve made as a result. The revised recommendations will be presented during a townhall meeting in later January (tentatively January 19, from 2-3 pm; invitation and agenda forthcoming) with an online ratification vote to follow. This blog also answers some of the questions that were raised by members in the comment section of the online consultation.

Who should strike?

JAC recommended that all members be asked to withdraw their labour (i.e., strike) excepting:

  • those on maternity and/or parental leave,

  • those on workers’ compensation,

  • those on long-term disability, or

  • those who receive an exemption (adjudicated by a committee).

When polled, 94.7% of respondents supported this recommendation.

Throughout the consultation, there was strong support for exempting members who are on research and study leave (RSL) from striking. The underlying arguments were RSLs take a long time to arrange, and that it’d be unfair to interrupt them.

JAC agreed, and adjusted its recommendation:

All members be asked to withdraw their labour (i.e., strike) excepting:

  • those on maternity and/or parental leave,

  • those on workers’ compensation,

  • those on long-term disability,

  • those on research and study leave, or

  • those who receive an exemption (adjudicated by a committee).

What labour should be withdrawn?

JAC recommended that during a strike:

  • academic members be directed to stop teaching, coordinating their courses, and performing university service work, and

  • professional members be directed to not engage in their professional duties and to stop their university service work.

When polled, 98.9% of respondents supported this recommendation, and as such, JAC has left this recommendation intact.

How will strike pay be allocated?

JAC recommended that strike pay be allocated to members who:

  • provided contact and banking information (a practical requirement)

  • withdrew their labour as set out above, and

  • participated in strike duties.

When polled, 93.7% of respondents supported this recommendation, and as such, JAC has left this recommendation intact.

What strike duties will AUFA members be asked to perform?

JAC recommended that AUFA members be asked to perform approximately 2 hours of strike duties per day and provided an illustrative list of strike duties. Members who are on casual sick leave (or become ill during a strike) would be excused.

When polled, 90.5% of respondents supported this recommendation.

Member comments focused on two issues.

  • Several members requested AUFA ensure there be strike duties that could be performed by members who could not picket in person.

  • Several members suggested that greater flexibility around the time (e.g., requiring 10 hours per week, rather than 2 hours per day) would

It has long been AUFA’s intention to ensure everyone would have accessible picketing options. This was clarified in a December blog post. Shifting from 2 hours per day to 10 hours per week also makes sense.

In light of this feedback, JAC has adjusted its recommendation to be:

All members would be expected to perform 10 hours of strike activities per week, excepting those who are sick or who receive an exemption.

How will AUFA resolve disputes about these issues during a work stoppage?

JAC recommended AUFA set up a Strike Pay Eligibility Committee to adjudicate disputes about strike pay and other related matters. The committee will also administer all requests for exemptions to the general approach set out above.

While every AUFA member should share the costs of a strike equally, it is important to have a fair process by which we can address instances when the strike disproportionately impacts some members and accommodate them. Since this is our first time through a strike, we also need a process to handle events that we haven’t foreseen.

When polled, 95.7% of respondents supported this recommendation.

Member comments focused on committee composition and selection. JAC’s original proposal was to have the Vice-President chair the committee with six members appointed by the Executive (this is how AUFA usually creates ad hoc committees). Members suggested electing committee members and ensuring the committee had an equal number of academic and professional members.

In light of this feedback, JAC has adjusted its recommendation such that the committee would be chaired by the Vice-President and comprise three academic members and three professional members selected via a membership nomination and election process. The Executive will draft the terms of reference for this committee.

Member Questions

Q. Why is AUFA proposing using direct deposit instead of e-transfers for strike pay?

A. Direct deposit can be more easily automated (reducing the work and errors), creates an easier paper trail to audit, and allows for easier correction of errors.

Q. How can I digitally picket when I’m not on social media.

A. As set out in the December picketing post, there will be several digital picketing options, including ones that do not require access to social media. That said, social media accounts are also easy to create and operate. You can also create an anonymous and/or second social media account if you are concerned about your privacy or professional reputation.

Q. What happens if I withdraw my labour but don’t perform strike activities?

A. If the membership ratifies the criteria JAC is recommending for strike pay eligibility and you choose not to meet one of the criteria and do not receive an exemption, then you will not receive strike pay. The rationale for this is that everyone benefits from the collective agreement, thus everyone must share the costs (including performing strike activities) associated with winning improvements.

Q. How will AUFA be communicating about a strike to students?

A. AUFA is in periodic contact with the student associations. When a strike appears imminent, AUFA will provide student-directed communications as well as talking points for AUFA members should students contact them directly.

Q. What will happen if I am on vacation and a strike commences?

A. Members who are on vacation when a strike commences will be expected to withdraw their labour and receive strike pay. Members on vacation at the start of a strike whose vacation circumstances would impede them performing strike activities, can request a temporary exemption to that requirement from the Strike Pay Eligibility Committee.

Q. Why are you focused on a strike instead of a work to rule campaign?

A. It comes down to an assessment of risk and reward. Working to rule is a form of a strike. In order to legally strike (whether that means working to rule or withdrawing our labour entirely), AUFA needs to be in a legal strike position (we’re a ways from that at the moment) and serve notice of a strike on the employer.

When a strike commences, the collective agreement is no longer in effect. This allows the employer to impose whatever terms and conditions it likes upon us. Typically, employers impose their most recent offer. Continuing to work (even if it is working to rule) in these circumstances would allow the employer to implement things like their proposals for cheaper layoffs and less academic and professional freedom.

Working to rule, while doubtless an irritant to the employer, would not exert much pressure on them to settle since working to rule would not profoundly disrupt operations and we would be working to rule under the terms they want. AUFA’s counter move to an employer imposing its terms on us is to have a full strike (which would apply significant pressure to settle on AU). Given this, it makes sense to focus on a strike, rather than a work-to-rule campaign.

JAC hopes this update is useful. The townhall agenda (with a full set of proposals) will be circulated next week by email. In the meantime, you can send question to barnetso@athabascau.ca .

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

Bargaining Update

AU and AUFA met last week for two days of bargaining (October 25 & 29). AU continues to refuse to present 12 of its proposals, including its monetary proposals. The AUFA bargaining team once again re-iterated how this refusal is blocking progress at the table.

Academic and professional freedom (Article 11) and Article 4, which relates to professional’s probation, performance and promotion were the primary topics of discussion. The parties also agreed in principle to some small housekeeping changes to Article 20 regarding external professional activities (i.e., work outside of AU), although some larger issues in that article remain.

On academic and professional freedom AUFA provided a counter-proposal which would protect key elements of academic freedom and enhance professional freedom. While AU did not provide a formal response to the proposal, AU repeated its claim that professionals do not need protection because no professionals have ever been disciplined for speaking out or criticizing the employer. AU continued to make this claim even after AUFA provided an example of a professional being disciplined for expressing professional concerns over an employer decision.

On the topic of professionals’ probation, performance, and promotion (Article 4), the parties had extended discussions over AU’s proposal to eliminate key processes such as the probation review and position evaluation committees. These processes ensure that decisions regarding probation and position classification are fair to the member. These rollbacks are accompanied by a proposal to reduce the probation period to 12 months (from 2 years).

AU’s proposal is a classic “carrot-and-stick” proposal. AU is offering something that benefits the members (i.e., shorter probationary periods) but has paired it with series of measures that profoundly undermine members’ rights (i.e., fair probationary review and position evaluation processes). AU has not presented a compelling rationale for reducing the fairness of the probationary and position evaluation processes. AUFA continues to advocate for fairer processes for these kinds of decisions, including resolving disputes over workloads and performance evaluations.

AU’s insistence on rolling back rights for professionals with the justification that professionals don’t deserve these rights because other universities don’t provide the same level of protection to their professionals is an example of a wedge strategy. A wedge strategy seeks rollbacks affecting a subset of the full membership. These rollbacks are often paired with some sort of minor improvement for other members. This strategy is designed to erode the solidarity of a union’s members by incentivizing the majority of members to vote for a small gain that benefits them at the expense of the subgroup targeted for rollbacks. In subsequent rounds, the employer builds on the animosity it has created by targeting a different group for rollbacks.

Rolling back rights of professionals is contrary to the university’s longstanding commitment to relative parity between professional and academic groups. AUFA argues this parity is warranted because education delivery at AU is more integrated than at bricks-and-mortar institutions and professionals are more involved in all aspects of the university’s mandate. In this way, AU is unique and the collective agreement reflects this uniqueness.

When AUFA reminded the employer’s bargaining team of AU’s uniqueness as an institution, it was told that AU being unique is “dangerous”. “One problem we face is thinking that we are unique”, AU co-chair Margaret Kierylo warned. “We are exactly like other institutions”.

AUFA believes this drive to separate professionals and academics is behind many of AU’s bargaining proposals, and may even be reflected in their monetary offer when it is finally presented. If AUFA’s members allow AU to roll back rights for professionals in this round of bargaining, AU will almost certainly come for the rights of academics in the next round of bargaining.

Finally, AUFA provided 11 dates in November and December where the team is available and willing to bargain. AU was unable to respond to those dates. AUFA, once again, must wait for AU to offer dates. AUFA is growing concerned about the lack of AU’s availability to bargain. Bargaining for a few days each month is insufficient to reach a deal in a reasonable timeframe.

As a reminder, AUFA is holding a town hall meeting for all members tomorrow, Tuesday November 2, at 10:00 am, to discuss the status of bargaining and to answer members’ questions about a possible strike/lock out. If you have questions, please attend.

As always, the AUFA bargaining team will work hard to represent the members’ best interests at the table.

Jason Foster

Chair, AUFA Bargaining Committee