proposal

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: Mediation Fails After Employer Makes Mockery of Process

AU and AUFA met in formal mediation with mediator Mark Asbell on March 8. Mediation concluded at the end of the day without a mediator’s recommendation. This blog post explains what happened, why mediation ended, and what happens next.

The parties met with the mediator at 9:00 am. After introductions, the mediator met with each party separately to discuss “hills to die on” and outstanding issues where movement is possible. This is a normal part of the mediation process and the basic goal is to find common ground as a means of moving negotiations forward in a productive way.

For its part, AUFA made clear AU’s withdrawal of damaging language aimed at undermining the rights of professionals remains an AUFA priority. We also stressed that a fair wage settlement, reasonable language around designation, and AU’s withdrawal of language limiting Research and Study Leave (RSL) leave for both academics and professionals were equally important for members. In keeping with the normal “give and take” of the mediation process, AUFA also indicated areas where we were open to discussion, including cost-of-living adjustments (COLA).

Mid-morning the mediator informed AUFA that AU was preparing a “full proposal” for our consideration and requested AUFA give them a couple hours to complete that work. Even though AU had already had almost a full week to prepare a counter-proposal, we agreed. A couple hours turned into almost eight hours.

At almost 5:00 pm, AUFA was informed of the “new” proposal. The proposal was nearly identical to their February 28 proposal except for a handful of minor changes to appeal processes and equity language. The proposal includes the elimination of professional RSL and the “buy-out” for pennies on the dollar. It had the same severe concessions with no movement on academic RSL, professional lay-offs or COLA. None of AUFA’s substantive proposals were considered.

It was conveyed to AUFA this was “their last proposal”.

The AUFA bargaining team deliberated on this unfortunate turn of events. We had fully been expecting at the very least a serious AU effort at reaching a mutually satisfactory deal. What we were left with instead was a wasted day and a Board proposal not materially different from its previous proposal.

AUFA came into mediation serious about trying to find an agreement and communicated that clearly to the mediator. In deliberations, AUFA came to the conclusion that AU entered mediation with no intention of finding a deal and used the day to waste time and frustrate all involved. In short, AUFA decided that AU was making a mockery of the mediation process.

While AUFA had booked the rest of the week to devote to mediation, we now believe AU was not serious about finding a solution. With that realization we requested the mediator step away and report that no mediated agreement was possible. Once the mediator issues that report, formal mediation concludes.

It is the bargaining team’s belief that AU is trying to force a strike in an effort to bust the union. We do not want a strike, but will take the steps we need to protect the interest of AUFA members.

The next step is a 14-day cooling off period, where neither party can take any further steps under the Labour Relations Code (although bargaining is allowed to continue). The parties have set aside time for mediation this week and we have two days of bargaining scheduled for next week. Despite our disappointment, AUFA continues to want to move bargaining forward, so the bargaining team will assess our next steps.

During the 14 days, AUFA can can take steps to apply for a strike vote of members. AU can also move towards a Board vote to lock-out AUFA members. After either vote, the parties must give 72 hours’ notice to activate a strike or lockout. Bargaining can continue throughout.

In the coming days AUFA will offer further communications about next steps and set up a town hall to discuss the state of bargaining.

Jason Foster, Chair

AUFA Bargaining Team

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

AUFA – Bargaining Proposal 2020

We are entering a critical stage in the life of our university and in the life of our union.

We are, of course, facing the challenges of COVID-19, which has radically transformed our work experience, but we are also facing challenges from a provincial government insistent on massive budget cuts, and an Employer making implicit and explicit threats of wage rollbacks, layoffs, and re-organization redundancies.

Over the next weeks and months, the AUFA Bargaining Team, backed by the collective might and solidarity of all AUFA members, is fixed on meeting these challenges to our university and to our union.

To that end, below is a ‘high level’  preliminary version of the proposals the AUFA Bargaining Team intends to bring to the bargaining table later this spring. As I mentioned in my last blog post, while this proposal may not include everything all members would like to see, we nevertheless trust that it contains those critical elements reflective of our consultations process to satisfy as many members as possible.

For ease of reading, we have divided each proposal category into two parts: the first identifies the issue behind the proposal, and the second indicates our proposal’s goal in solving the issue.

On Thursday, 23 April, the Bargaining Team will hold an online ‘townhall’ so AUFA members can provide feedback on these proposals. One week from today, on 27 April, the Bargaining Team will ask all AUFA members to vote their support of the proposals. Further details on both the townhall and the vote will be forthcoming in the next few days.

Eric Strikwerda

AUFA Bargaining Chair


AUFA Bargaining Proposal - 2020

Designation

Issue

The Employer has proposed de-designating 67% of our membership, which would strip members of rights and devastate AUFA’s bargaining power.

Goal

Language setting out a clear consultation process and limiting the employer’s ability to de-designate AUFA members without AUFA consent.

Academic Freedom

Issue

AUFA Professional members have at present far fewer academic freedom rights than do AUFA Academic members.

This situation is fundamentally unfair, inherently divisive, and not at all reflective of the work that ALL AUFA members, whether they’re Academics or Professionals, actually do.

Goal

Language ensuring Professional staff the same academic freedoms at present enjoyed by Academic staff.

COLA

Issue

AUFA members have for 5 of the past 8 years acceded to the Employer’s demands of a 0% increase in our Cost Of Living Adjustment (wages), despite AU consistently posting budget surpluses over that same period. Due to inflation, of course, a 0% increase in COLA is actually a pay cut, and year-over-year this cut has been compounded, resulting in significant wage losses to AUFA members.

Goal

A modest COLA increase.

Benefits

Issue

Members indicated a strong desire to strengthen our health benefits and guaranteed vacation days.

Goal

Language strengthening our existing benefits including enhanced coverage and broader and more robust health spending account options.

Athabasca Jobs

Issue

In recent years the Employer has increasingly moved new jobs out of the Athabasca region, much to the detriment of the region’s economic health and viability, as well as Athabasca University’s strategic position as a non-urban institution.

Goal

Language preserving and enhancing AU’s future hiring policies to ensure more jobs are located in and remain in the Athabasca region.

Workload Disputes

Issue

At present, when members dispute their workload, their only recourse is direct appeal to AU’s Executive. Not surprisingly, AU’s Executive has little interest in siding with AUFA members on appeal.

Goal

Language substituting the Executive as final appeal with a fairer Appeals Committee made up of regular, full-time AUFA members and based on principles of collegiality.

Compassionate Care Leave

Issue

At present, AU’s compassionate care leave policies a) fall short of current Alberta Employment Standards Rules, and b) constitute a woefully inadequate response to AUFA members’ rare, but very real, needs during times of personal emergency.

Goal

Language bringing Compassionate Care provisions of our Collective Agreement into line with provincial rules, and improving the length, extent, and compensation aspects of AUFA members’ compassionate care leaves.

Sick Leaves

Issue

The Employer has in the recent past tried to insist that family doctor notes as proof of sick leave needs are insufficient. AUFA members have countered—strongly—that no one is in a better position to determine sick leave requirements than members’ own doctors.

Goal

Language ensuring that sick notes from AUFA members’ family doctors are sufficient to establish the legitimacy of sick leaves.

Contracting Out AUFA Work

Issue

The Employer has in recent years increasingly relied on “short-term” contracts to fulfill AU’s labour needs. This practice undermines AUFA’s bargaining power even while it offers limited benefits and zero job security to precarious workers.

Goal

Language limiting the nature and extent of contracting out AUFA work.

Telework

Issue

Lately the Employer has required more AUFA members to work out of a home office. There are some benefits to working remotely, but there are also inherent costs, including equipment purchases and technology needs.

Goal

Language ensuring AUFA members required to work remotely are provided with the technological, material, and other supports they need to work out of a home office.

Academic and Professional Overload

Issue

At present, there is a lack of clarity in the Collective Agreement regarding pay structures and procedures for overload work.

Goal

Language clarifying pay structures and procedures for overload work.

Market Supplements

Issue

A longstanding issue in our Collective Agreement is the payment of so-called ‘market supplements’ in addition to regular salaries of some new Academic and Professional Staff hires. This practice has created an Executive-directed, often arbitrary ‘two-tiered’ membership within our bargaining unit.

Goal

Language incorporating market supplement monies into our salary grid, eliminating their need.

Enrollment Information

Issue

Under our current Collective Agreement, the Employer is obliged to furnish AUFA with aggregate and specific information crucial to our broader understanding of AU’s operations, and especially how our members fit into those operations. At present, AUFA is not entitled to enrollment numbers information.

Goal

Language ensuring AUFA access to enrollment information on an ongoing basis.

Occupational Health and Safety

Issue

Down to now, the Employer has done a modest-to-poor job of adhering to Occupational Health and Safety protocols.

Goal

Language clarifying and bolstering AUFA members’ workplace Occupational Health and Safety, including enshrining members’ right to refuse unsafe work.

Pay Equity

Issue

Our members have indicated a strong desire to improve the Employer’s pay equity practices.

Goal

Language deepening and broadening AU’s pay equity practices.

Association Business Practices

Issue

The extensive work performed by AUFA members in service to AUFA business is crucial, and requires additional recognized time away from their regular AU duties.

Goal

Language improving FTE book off language for AUFA-elected members conducting union business.