Recent elimination of AUFA positions: What you need to know

On March 28th, AUFA was notified that three AUFA positions were made redundant as a result of restructuring within operational teams. We are also aware of four positions within another bargaining unit that were eliminated. We understand that these seven positions in total are the only reductions.  

What is redundancy? 

Outside of disciplinary reasons, AUFA members can lose their jobs through either layoff or redundancy. These are similar processes that are both covered under Article 12 of the collective agreement. Layoffs are terminations for financial reasons. To lay off staff, AU must demonstrate to the union that they are financially exigent. Redundancies are eliminations for organizational reasons.  

Redundancies follow Article 12.2: 

1. AUFA is informed sixty days in advance. During this time, Human Resources has begun a practice placing the affected member on paid leave immediately and cutting off their system access immediately.   

2. During those sixty days, AUFA and HR are obligated to work collaboratively to seek redeployment or retraining opportunities and try to find a new job for the member. 

3. If this is not successful, the member is served a year’s notice for termination, and then up to six months of severance. HR has always elected to pay out this notice period, which results in a total layoff package of 18 months’ pay.  

4. The member is then placed on a recall list for four years, during which time the member has first right of refusal to new jobs at AU.  

Can the employer do this? 

The collective agreement allows for redundancies for the following reasons:  

1. GFC discontinues courses, disciplines or programs. 

2. Course enrolment drops to the point where the number of staff should be reconsidered. 

3. Existing courses, disciplines, or programs are reconfigured that changes the type of staff needed. 

4. The University reorganizes, eliminates activities, functions or departments, and as a result the need for the number and type of staff must be re-evaluated.  

The contract does not require the employer to prove it has met any of the above criteria. The only way to pursue this information would be arbitration. As it stands, the university can make jobs redundant, and AUFA's only response is to legally respond after the fact.  

Analysis 

As AU restructures and suffers drops in enrolment, redundancy claims may become more common. But consider how enrolment dropping also drops revenue. So it is hard to know if a redundancy is primarily or exclusively due to the four reasons above. The collective agreement does not rule out mixed reasons, so financial pressures could well be at play.   

AU is undergoing major restructuring, which may result in new positions in the future. It is possible, then, that once the restructuring is complete, there would be plenty of work for those in the now eliminated positions to do. However, permanently eliminating these positions saves the university money. We can only speculate as to whether these redundancies are a result of financial pressures surrounding the new fiscal year.   

Historically, AU avoided using redundancy language, instead choosing to repurpose existing staff whenever possible. This approach is much kinder, and the fact that it doesn’t seem to have been considered at this time raises questions about whether the decisions were actually financial.  

We should be concerned about the use of redundancy, given that the entire IT department was made redundant in 2021. The employer used redundancy language to move members into new positions. That use of redundancy language is pending arbitration.  

What is AUFA doing?  

The three impacted members have received notification, and we are working to support them through this difficult process. We have shared concerns with AU president Alex Clark. We have received reassurance that these layoffs are isolated decisions and not necessarily a sign of more to come.  

AUFA will continue to hold the employer to account as well as try to mitigate the harm done to the affected members. These efforts could include pursuing possible grievances if these layoffs breached the collective agreement. 

AUFA Condemns Employer Disruption and Mismanagement; Calls for Concrete Action

AUFA condemns the Board of Governors’ callous firing of Dr. Scott who lost his wife only weeks ago. The surprise announcement of the termination of former AU President Dr. Peter Scott and the appointment of Dr. Alex Clark to fill this role has left faculty and staff at Athabasca University reeling.  AUFA members have been experiencing callousness and disruption beyond the recent upheavals and actions of the BOG and are growing weary of the cycle of crises facing this institution – a cycle that is taking its toll on staff morale and student enrolment alike. Yet we also remain committed to the university’s open mission and hopeful for some stability and calm so we can focus on our work in service of this mission.  

This blog post will analyze how we got here and outline a path forward. Our core message to the university administration and the Board of Governors is that, to right this ship, faculty and staff need to lead the way.  

Problematic Process 

The sudden announcement of a change in presidents left many wondering, how did this happen? While the full story likely won’t ever be revealed, it is clear from multiple (and in some cases, conflicting) media reports that the process by which this decision was made was extremely problematic, including the callous way in which Dr. Scott was “released.” It is difficult not to see the roots of this decision in the heavy-handed approach to AU overhauling board membership and issuing institutional directives adopted by the Minister of Advanced Education Demetrios Nicolaides since last March.  

AUFA is aligned with the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations (CAFA) and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) in calling for all presidential searches at post-secondary institutions to be as open and transparent as possible. Instead of being surprised by the announcement of a new leader selected through a completely closed and secretive process, faculty, staff, students, and the broader community should have meaningful exposure to potential candidates and an opportunity to provide input to the selection process.  

While we remain critical of the process that got us to this point, AUFA calls on Dr. Clark to provide very different leadership than what we’ve experienced over the last several years – one that is more responsive and prioritizes stability and employee well-being over unproductive disruption.  

“Disharmony”  

The Board Chair referenced “staff strife and disharmony” as a key factor motivating this decision. We might characterize the situation slightly differently, but it does point to the worsening of both morale and working conditions over the past several years. AUFA members have weathered blatant union-busting, aggressive bargaining, continuous and cumulative breaches of our rights under the collective agreement, and a generally callous disregard for our well-being. AUFA staff and volunteers can scarcely keep up with the onslaught of contract violations, disciplines, and other issues facing our colleagues.  

While AUFA as a union is occasionally vilified by university leaders or painted as the source of problems, the reality is that we simply would not have to fight so much if university leadership, particularly decision makers within Human Resources, demonstrated even the slightest bit more care and regard for employee well-being. Well-intentioned, good faith efforts to raise concerns about employee wellness are routinely ignored or rejected.  

AUFA is committed to doing its part to meet in good faith and attempt to resolve current, long-standing, and emergent issues directly with the employer and to reduce the number of cases that are escalated to arbitration at the labour board. We call on the university administration to come to the table with the same good faith.  

Words and Actions  

One of the most common complaints we have heard from AUFA members over several years of regular surveys and other engagement efforts is the disconnect between the rhetoric of university leadership and their concrete actions. This has been experienced most acutely in the university’s so-called commitment to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI).  

Despite proclamations about intentions to champion EDI, including signing the Scarborough Charter, previous initiatives left much to be desired. We still are waiting for a university-wide plan and policy, supported by appropriate personnel and overseen by a body independent from HR, for fostering an equitable, diverse, and inclusive work environment and articulating institutional accountabilities. While we wait, faculty, staff, and students who are experiencing systematic forms of gender, sex, racial, anti-Indigenous, and anti-Black harassment are left with little recourse.  

AU’s actions and rhetoric on EDI need to come into closer alignment – urgently, not pushed to some distant future. AUFA calls on the university administration to prioritize the establishment of an independent Equity Office that has both an appropriate mandate and sufficient resources to be effective.  

Mismanagement 

Over at least the past year AUFA members and our colleagues have been grappling with increasingly unsustainable workloads and worsening working conditions, making it more and more difficult to maintain the services and quality of courses that students deserve and expect.  

There are many contributing factors, but topping the list are the many ways in which IT functions have been extremely poorly managed by top leaders while also being increasingly severed from academic oversight and governance. From the poorly handled reorganization of the IT department to the incessant pushing forward with ill-fitting and costly technological changes, staff within IT have been working within an increasingly corrosive working environment, and negative impacts are being felt across nearly all university departments.  

We want a chance to be excited about change, to exercise our professional judgment, and to actually use the skills for which we were hired in the service of the university’s open mission. We want to break out of unproductive siloes and to understand how our individual work contributes to achievable, shared goals. AUFA calls on the university administration to pause the implementation of the Integrated Learning Environment and prioritize staff agency and input in an honest and transparent reassessment of technological change initiatives.  

Time to Start Listening 

Of course, there are forces at play that are larger than AU alone. The post-secondary sector across the province and beyond is strained by many of the same issues, and the current provincial government has contributed to many crises and challenges across institutions. But AU is not simply a victim of circumstances. There are many things that are fully within the university’s power to change.  

The top-down, managerial, corporate-style leadership adopted over the past several years is not working, nor is the increased reliance on external vendors. Our strength as a university comes from within – the dedication and commitment of those who do the real work in the service of students is the reason AU has survived despite abysmal failures of leadership.  

As a faculty association, we have frequently engaged our membership in order to gather meaningful feedback and input on both internal union decisions and broader university questions. Our understanding of the current situation is grounded in countless hours of respectful listening, reading, writing, and discussions with colleagues. Yet we have been consistently ignored, sidelined, or belittled by successive university leaders. We expect that our colleagues in our sibling unions have had a similar experience.  

We believe that, for the university to achieve stability and grow in its mandate as an open public institution, senior administrators and the board of governors need to hear, respect, and meaningfully respond to the concerns and suggestions raised by faculty, staff, and students. Better yet, AU needs to move beyond listening and empower faculty and staff to actively and meaningfully participate in decision making processes, including those at the highest level.  

AUFA calls on the Board of Governors and the university administration to refocus on core, mission-driven work; to prioritize stability and faculty and staff well-being; to empower employees to exercise meaningful agency; and to strengthen collegial governance by increasing transparency and participation.  

Rhiannon Rutherford, AUFA President 

Your Turn 

The AUFA executive will be identifying more specific priorities to present to the new university leadership. Use this space to share your priorities or any other thoughts about the recent announcement and how AUFA should respond.  

Strike Support Rising—Member Survey

In late November, AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) completed its fifth telephone survey of members. Thirty-one volunteer callers contacted 102 randomly selected AUFA members (~23.5% of the membership). The resulting sample is broadly representative of our membership as a whole. This blog presents aggregated results. Key themes include: 

• AUFA enjoys broad support (90%). 

• Trust in the university executive is low (15%). 

• Members want a reasonable wage increase to offset inflation. 

• Member solidarity is high and there is growing support for a strike. 

Climate Questions 

Survey callers asked three recurring and one new climate question. Overall, there were no major differences between the views of professional and academic members. The new question (about morale) addresses comments in past surveys that members often enjoy their job (thus enjoy starting work in the morning) but are frustrated with working at AU. 

Overall, 39% of members agree that their morale is high while 34% indicate it is low. This is significantly different than the 75% of members who indicate they enjoy starting work in the morning. Comments associated with these questions suggest that many members enjoy the work they do. However, they find the context in which they do that work very frustrating. A number of members noted that they have intentionally reduced their university service work in order to reduce their frustration. This new morale question appears to generate a more nuanced assessment of where the membership is at and will be retained going forward.  

When asked if they trust the executive team of the university, 15% of respondents said yes while 58% said no. These results are similar to the April 2021 survey, where 16% of respondents indicated they trust the executive and 63% indicated they did not. It appears the departure of Neil Fassina has arrested the freefall in member trust but the executive has not been able to repair the damage. 

Respondent comments identified several issues driving ongoing mistrust of AU’s executive. These include efforts to bust the union through de-designation, continuing problems with the IT re-organization, lack of any meaningful progress at the bargaining table, unmanageable workloads, pay inequity, the sneaky withdrawal of market supplements, executive invisibility, and insincere communications.  

One member’s comments (paraphrased by the interviewer) provide a representative view of the AU executive: 

The pandemic has been incredibly difficult and the actions of the AU executive team during this time have been cruel. They appear to operate with a total disregard for university employees, in fact they seem to operate with a disregard for what makes AU a good place to work and a good university. I have little faith that they make decisions with the interests of faculty, staff, and students in mind. It has become difficult to hope that the future of the university will be a good one. Their detached, non-transparent, and hostile-to-consultation style of leadership is likely to be disastrous for the university.  

A very small number of members hope a new president will change the executive’s behaviour. It is difficult to imagine how the current executive can turn matters around and a top-to-bottom executive “house cleaning” may be the best option. 

When asked whether AUFA was doing a good job, 90% of members agreed; only 2% disagreed. This is broadly similar to the April 2021 survey, where 93% of respondents indicated AUFA was doing a good job and 2% disagreed.  

Bargaining Questions 

The survey asked several questions about bargaining. The full results have been provided to the bargaining team to inform their approach at the table going forward. Significantly, there has been a notable increase in member willingness to strike. In April 2021, 69% of members said they would strike to avoid a 4% rollback. In this survey, 96% of members said they would strike to avoid any rollback. 

Members were asked what their highest priority change to the collective agreement was. By far, the most common answer was a raise to address inflation. AUFA members have not had a raise in salary grids in four years. Job security was also ranked as a priority, although notably less so.   

With the employer yet to table a full proposal (i.e., monetary plus full language on a number of items are still missing), there is a chance that AU may attempt some wedge tactics. To gauge the effectiveness of this potential approach, members were asked about their willingness to accept an employer offer that provided them with a small gain but only if they agreed to a rollback that would harm other members.  

Respondents overwhelming (81%) rejected such wedge tactics, with only 1% indicating they would accept such an offer. 

What this survey suggests is that wedge tactics would not be an effective approach for AU. This high level of member resistance to wedge tactics is likely influenced by AU’s efforts in 2020 to de-designate large portions of the AUFA membership. This cynical move only strengthened member solidarity.  

Members were also asked whether they had any concerns or questions about a possible work stoppage. These items have been passed along to the AUFA Job Action Committee for discussion. In the meantime, members with questions about a possible work stoppage are encouraged to consult the following resources on the AUFA website:  

• strike primer 

• work stoppage FAQs   

• financially preparing for a strike or lockout 

• professional and practical strike or lockout preparation 

• strike prep 

• striking and strike pay consultation 

Finally, the survey asked members questions about equity issues at AU. These results will be passed along to the AUFA Equity Committee for discussion. Members’ responses will also be shared as part of AUFA’s external equity audit. More information about this audit process (including how to get involved) will be shared in the new year.  

MEC very much appreciates the work of the 31 volunteer callers, who made this survey the easiest to conduct yet. MEC also appreciates the 102 AUFA members who took the time to speak with the callers and help AUFA’s various committees understand the views and needs of AUFA members. 

Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair 

AUFA Membership Engagement Committee 

The IT Optimization: Stronger through adversity

This is the second part of a two-part blog series on the IT Optimization. For part one, click here.

In our first blog we spoke about the process HR and IT used to force all AUFA members into new jobs as determined by management. This post is about the response from members and fallout.

Survey

One most people accepted their positions, a short survey was sent to the affected IT members for feedback. The questions asked were about the IT optimization treatment of members, communication, meetings, transition, and AUFA representation. The personal dignity question speaks to a repeated statement from Jennifer Schaeffer that her highest priority was preserving the personal dignity of affected staff. The survey was sent to 55 AUFA members, with 38 responding.  

View fullsize

View fullsize

The survey results speak to the general confusion and dissatisfaction from most of the affected IT staff members. Many members left long commentary about their incredible frustration at the process and poor treatment of their colleagues. Most respondents were uncertain about their new positions, rather than upset. This indicates that the resistance was not to the change (a frequent narrative by AU Executive), but to the mechanism of change.

The comments had the following recurring themes:

• The process was stressful, demoralizing, and punitive

• The lack of a transition plan is extremely concerning and speaks to negligence and incompetence by IT senior leadership

• Frustration with AUFA’s limited ability to stop bad redeployments or correct faulty job descriptions

• That communication was non-existent or insulting

• That IT leadership had no respect for their staff

• The process was poorly planned

The full comments, which have been edited to preserve confidentiality, are below.

Building Solidarity

Although some members have been treated well, many others are left confused, alienated, disrespected, and angry. Even members who are promoted or are simply moved into the same job have found this process to be at best confusing and overwrought, and at worst cruel and coercive. However, a bad boss makes for a stronger union.

AUFA members have taken this attack on their rights to self-advocate, talk with each other, share stories, and build a common understanding. This is the foundation of an organized union and common solidarity. The IT Optimization has been one of the most poorly handled major changes in AU history and the result is an angry and motivated membership who have learned that the only way they can come out ahead is by looking out for one another. AUFA members representing each other, and then standing up in tense meetings, letter-writing campaigns, and very tough questions directed at senior management softened this process.  

AUFA approached this process early on in good faith, and trusted IT and HR to handle this humanely and with kindness. That trust was violated. However, when we looked to each other, that trust was rewarded.

Next Steps

AUFA’s work with the IT department will continue as many members are left in confusing, difficult situations and the risk of continued poor treatment and contractual violations is high. As well, we have filed two grievance. The first is on the use of redundancy language, demanding that a full and appropriate position evaluation be granted to anyone who wants it. This will allow the job descriptions to be written with the consultation of the incumbents to ensure the jobs are accurate and fair. The second grievance is on the ‘take the job or resign’ use of redundancy language, and will hopefully prevent redundancy from ever being used again to bypass the hard work of doing a reorganization properly. We have also added the IT Optimization to the Unfair Labour Practice complaint over exclusions during bargaining.

Most importantly, we will continue organizing with and speaking to the IT department and supporting members as they foster a stronger community together. A go-forward model of members representing each other moves power from a small centralized executive into the membership, and is the ultimate goal for a strong, democratic union.

David Powell

President, Athabasca University Faculty Association

The IT Optimization: Move slow and break things

AU recently completed a major reorganization of its IT functions, titled the IT Optimization. Hinted at since Jennifer Schaeffer’s arrival, the optimization was announced in January 2020 and repeatedly delayed until now. This process affected roughly sixty AUFA members and has been autocratic, secretive, and harmful to many people. This is the first of two blog posts discussing the optimization. The second blog post will go over the response from the affected members.

Normally, position changes occur under Article 4.5, which includes the incumbent in the plans to change their job. To avoid this, IT and HR used Article 12.2, redundancy. Despite multiple consultations about the reorganization in 2020, AUFA was not informed that AU would be using redundancy language until the process was formally underway. By using redundancy language, IT could draft entirely new job descriptions in complete secrecy, lay everyone off, and then force staff into whatever job IT management deemed appropriate.

Redundancy is normally invoked when a workplace function is eliminated, leaving the incumbent without any work to do. Under contract, AUFA receives 60 days’ notice to investigate alternatives to severance with HR. At the end of the 60 days, the position is abolished, and any staff let go receive severance.

Members were affected in multiple ways. Many members went through the stressful redundancy process only to find they were moved into the same job. Others found themselves moved into entirely different career paths they did not feel qualified for. Others had their work diminished and insulted through the new jobs. Both promotions and demotions took place. Staff who had spoken extensively with IT directors about their career plans and professional development were almost universally ignored.

The secrecy and refusal to reveal important information to AUFA members approached the bizarre. AUFA met with HR repeatedly to glean information about the reorganization and then communicate it to AUFA members as IT leadership refused to say anything useful. The deadline to apply for managerial jobs was the day before members would be told their future career, leaving people to apply for an excluded job or take the ‘mystery box.’ The deadline to accept the new positions expired before the successful managerial candidates were revealed, forcing members to accept a job without knowing who their supervisor would be.

Despite some or all IT functions in Faculty of Business, Student and Academic Web Services, Library, Finance, and Faculty of Science moving into AU’s central IT unit, there has been no communication about what will happen to the work they were doing. The Deans and Directors of the above areas have received vague assurances that the functions will continue, but transition plans do not appear to exist.

All new positions begin on July 1st. HR has informed all IT staff they cannot continue their old duties. IT leadership have said the transition may take years. The contradiction between HR and IT management has not been resolved.

The handling of managerial positions is particularly troublesome and is detailed here. The fallout of the managerial positions is that six prior managers found themselves demoted or moved into different careers despite years of positive assessments and feedback from IT leadership. Cases involve members applying for an excluded version of their own job and not getting it, or others returning from bereavement leave to find they were facing demotion. If they were bad at their jobs, why did they have no invitation for improvement? If they were good at their jobs, why were they demoted?

A similar process was used with AUPE members in the redeployment. Six AUPE members were offered AUFA positions as an alternative to new AUPE positions, all of which were accepted. Despite these promotions, the members were not offered better salaries beyond the contractual minimum and were all placed on probation – even in a case where an AUPE member was moved into an identical position he had already had for sixteen years. In some cases, the affected members will have lower take-home pay due to a lack of overtime and slightly higher paycheque reductions.

During the redundancy process, all affected members were entitled a single 15-minute meeting with either Ted Erickson or Graeme Denney. A team of six AUFA representatives reached out to all affected members and attended meetings with them. Thanks to powerful self-advocacy on the part of members, the meetings typically went overtime, some by as much as two hours. The meetings were often frustrating or pointless as members were told they had only one meeting and one job offer, and to reject the offer was to resign. After significant pushback, a handful of members received alternate, and in some cases more appropriate, job offers.

Although the 60-day notice period expires today, HR and IT introduced an early date of May 10th to accept the new positions. All members were told if they did not accept their positions by May 10th, they would resign effective July 1st. This has no basis in contract. When AUFA representatives confronted Human Resources about this deadline in a meeting, it was downplayed as a soft encouragement to move the process along, despite it being a clear threat delivered in writing. In the same meeting, HR also claimed that the exclusion of managers was due to them being a ‘named exclusion’ in the designation policy like directors. This is a misreading of AU’s own policy, as managers were only a named exclusion in early revisions and were removed in the final draft.

The impact on affected IT staff varies but in many cases it is severe. AUFA circulated a survey to IT staff and in the next blog post discussing the optimization, the response from the staff in the survey, and how staff organized with each other and pushed back against the worst excesses of this process will be discussed.

David Powell

President

Athabasca University Faculty Association