Spring survey results: Continued distrust in AU executive and strong strike threat

In June, volunteers with AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee (MEC) completed the sixth membership engagement survey. This survey included the usual climate questions as well as explored issues related to the recently concluded round of bargaining, the jobs in Athabasca issue (which has since become a significant issue), and AU’s implementation of Netskope surveillance software on members’ computers. 

This iteration of the survey was delayed from the targeted April/May timing, which likely impacted response rates. Eighty-two randomly selected members (just under 20% of the membership) completed the call-based survey, with representation across departments and employee types. 

Climate Questions 

Survey callers asked four recurring questions on the general climate at AU. Overall, members report continued distrust in the AU executive, while AUFA’s work is broadly supported. There is an interesting discrepancy between the 39% of members who reported high morale compared to 77% who reported enjoying starting work in the morning. This likely reflects members’ appreciation for the work they do while also reflecting their frustration with their working conditions. 

Looking further at the question of trust in AU’s executive team, there was a slight increase since the last survey (in fall 2021), from 15% to 20% expressing trust, which is still far below the highest rate of 30% who agreed with this question in the very first survey (in fall 2019). There were no clear trends in terms of which member groups are more or less likely to agree or disagree. For example, when analyzing responses based on length of service, new hires reported around the same level of distrust in executive and trust in AUFA as longer-serving staff. 

In the comments provided by members regarding AU’s executive, most expressed strongly negative feelings, with the following emerging as themes: 

• feelings of being mistreated, belittled, or disrespected by the employer  

• dissatisfaction with the communication and information provided to faculty and staff 

• perceptions of mismanagement, ineptitude, or hidden agendas 

• perceptions of a lack of understanding of the university’s culture and values 

• desire for following through with a vote of non-confidence in the current executive 

In terms of factors contributing to these feelings, the employer’s opening position in bargaining featured prominently. Members also spoke about how the various reorganizations at AU—including the IT reorganization and the near-virtual transition—have been and continue to be handled poorly, which is negatively affecting morale.  

Contract Negotiations 

Having narrowly avoided a strike this spring, MEC queried members’ willingness to have withdrawn their labour. The vast majority of members (88%) indicated were likely to have withdrawn their labour during a strike or lockout, with just 6% saying they were unlikely. This reponse suggests AUFA’s strike threat was a credible one. A credible strike threat enhances the bargaining power of the union. 

Members had mixed views about the final contract that was ratified. The largest chunk of repondents (44%) indicated they were “somewhat satisfied”; neutral and “somewhat dissatisfied” responses each received 22%. Very few members indicated they were either very satisfied (5%) or very dissatisfied (about 7%). This distribution of responses suggests that members are feeling rather ambivalent about the settlement.  

Survey respondents provided a wide variety of comments on the contract language, but the issue most members identified as concerning was (unsurprisingly) the loss of Research and Study Leave for professional members. Comments were broadly aligned with the discussion among members during bargaining, which includes broad, but certainly not unanimous, support for this benefit.  

In addition to the RSL issue, cost of living, inflation, and wages were frequently mentioned. Members broadly felt the cost-of-living adjustment was inadequate. Cost of home office was identified as needing to be addressed. 

Jobs in Athabasca 

As previously reported, a majority of respondents (73%) supported AUFA’s current position that, while no current AUFA member should be forced to re-locate, AU should make an effort to hire a portion of new staff to the Athabasca area. MEC also asked if AUFA should take a position on this issue at all, and a majority (67%) agreed that it should. 

Understanding that, as a union, we are often dealing with multiple priorities, MEC also asked about the relative importance of this issue. There was more disagreement on this question, with only 51% of respondents suggesting it was important that AUFA take a position. That is, there seems to be a portion of members (about 15–25%) who think AUFA should take a position and who agree with AUFA’s current position, but who don’t see this issue as a top concern. There were some identifiable differences when analyzing this question in more detail, so it’s worth taking a look at where some of this discrepancy comes from.  

There were some notable differences here when comparing new employees with those who have been at AU for longer. This issue is important to just 31% of employees who have been at AU fewer than 10 years, while 81% of those who have been at AU more than 20 years said this issue was important to them. 

It is also worth noting that support for AUFA’s position on this issue varies widely between faculties and departments, with the strongest support in FB, FHSS, and the IT department, and weakest support in FHD, FST, and other departments. 

Member comments were diverse. Some members noted that requiring candidates live in Athabasca may narrow the applicant pool unacceptably. Other suggested that candidates could be enticed to live in Athabasca through meaningful incentives.  

Some members felt AU’s primary role is to educate students, not contribute to the economy of Athabasca. Other members note that AU’s location was chosen for economic development purposes and there is no necessary conflict between providing online education while having a portion of jobs located in the Athabasca area. 

Other members were concerned that successive Boards and executives had mishandled this issue (primarily by ignoring it) and that the government was intervening due to political pressure. Some members suggested that the university executive should be expected to model a commitment to Athabasca by living in the Athabasca area, at least part of the time. Others suggested rethinking this issue in order to take advantage of the possibilities a rural campus offers.  

While a lot has happened since this survey was conducted in June, the AUFA executive’s open letter points to several ways in which this issue might be resolved in a constructive and mutually beneficial way.  

Netskope and Privacy 

Members were strongly in favour of AUFA taking steps to protect their privacy after AU installed surveillance software called Netskope on member computers without forewarning or data governance. 

Members’ comments provide many insights about their concerns with this program being used on their work computers, with some common themes: 

• It constitutes a breach of privacy. Members feel concerned about this being a breach to their right to privacy, confidentiality, and security in the workplace. 

• It creates a culture of mistrust between workers and the employer, as they feel not trusted and feel spied and surveilled by the employer. 

• Lack of transparency. Members manifested being concerned about not being properly informed on the reasons why this program is being used, about the data that is being collected, and about the implications that this may have for their privacy in the workplace. 

• It jeopardizes research participants’ right to security, anonymity, and confidentiality. Members who manage and storage research data collected among vulnerable populations (including Indigenous, racialized, and those with precarious legal status) think that the tracking of this information jeopardizes the security of research participants and their right to confidentiality and privacy, making researchers to incur in violations of research protocols. 

• Lack of informed consent. Members feel concerned about the fact that the decision to install a program to collects information was made on a top-down manner, without previous consultation, proper notice, or consent. 

• Insecurity in the workplace. Members fear that the information that is being collected can be used to punish those engaged in disputes with the employer. 

• Threat to safety. Members feel unsafe in the workplace, as they have no clear understanding of what type of information is being tracked and collected, and as they have no clear understanding if this information includes family/personal information. 

• It affects productivity and morale, as the feelings of being spied “all the time” discourages engagement with the job. It also discourages the search of information that can be seen as “suspicious” from the point of view of the employer. 

• There are no clear policies and rules governing the use of this software in the workplace. 

The AUFA executive is following up with the employer about the use of this software and the timelines for a privacy impact assessment, but have so far received no new information.  

The survey also asked members about their use of the AUFA website. This feedback has been shared with the communications committee and will help inform future work to improve the website for members.  

MEC extends its thanks to its volunteer callers as well as the members who took the time to answer the survey. The next MEC survey is planned for this fall. If you would like to be volunteer to help with survey calls, please email engagement@aufa.ca. 

Rhiannon Rutherford 

AUFA President

Bargaining Update: Tentative Agreement Reached

After another marathon day of mediator-assisted bargaining, AU and AUFA have reached a tentative agreement. Employer concessions contained in this new agreement no doubt reflect AUFA members’ strong rejection Monday of AU’s last ‘final’ offer. As a result, the AUFA bargaining team is recommending members vote to ratify this agreement. 

 AUFA is holding a town hall today at 2:00pm to discuss the substance of the tentative agreement, as well as what AUFA’s next steps might look like. In the meantime, this blog post provides a summary of the tentative settlement’s key items. For reference, the entire tentative agreement is attached below.  

2022 04 07 PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT (Tentaive Agreement) (00160919).pdf

The agreement uses the mediator’s report as the basis for most of the agreement. Most items in that report remain unchanged, including: 

• Cost-of-living-adjustment:  

  • The Government-mandated COLA increase of 1.25% (April 1, 2023), 1.5% (December 1, 2023) and an increase of 0.5% (retroactive to December 1, 2023) contingent on provincial gainsharing formula remains unchanged. This 3.25% COLA increase over the life of the contract appears to be pattern across most of the Alberta public sector. 

• Working-from-home allowance payments:  

  • Anyone who has not received the full $2000 for home office start-up will receive a ‘top up’ to make up the full $2000;  

  • Home-based staff with six years of service (and who received $2000 upon hiring) will receive an additional taxable $800 immediately. 

  • All AUFA members will receive an increase to their monthly allowance for internet and other office-related expenses from what it had been (roughly $61 per month for academics and roughly $50 per month for professionals) to $35 biweekly. 

• Joint committee to study Article 3: Academic Promotion and Tenure 

• Improvements to Compassionate Care Leave  

• Improvements to Occupational Health and Safety language 

• Language to include Joint Equity Committee in development of EDI framework and pay equity review 

• Withdrawal of employers’ outstanding concession demands 

The main changes in the tentative agreement relate to Research and Study Leave (RSL) benefits for Professional members. The proposed agreement removes Professionals’ eligibility for RSL going forward, with the following conditions: 

• No RSL days will be accrued going forward. New hires will not be eligible for RSL. Approved RSL leaves will be honoured. 

• Professionals will earn 30 days professional development leave per year (up from 21). Twenty-one days can be accrued per year to a maximum of 126 days (6 months). 

• Members can apply for leaves up to a maximum of six months. Members will need to apply for leaves longer than 21 days under new language that replicates the current process under RSL Leaves. If denied once, a second application will be given priority and not unreasonably denied. 

• Professionals with more than six months leave accrued will retain that leave, with no deadline on usage. Until their accrual drops below six months, they will only receive 21 PD days per year without accrual.  

• When a professional has fewer than six months RSL accrued, the leave will be converted to PD leave according to the formula in Schedule F and added to their PD bank. 

• Librarians will continue to be eligible for RSL. 

For clarity: in return for giving up RSL leave going forward, professionals will earn an additional 9 days of PD per year and will be able to accrue up to 21 days per year to a maximum of 6 months. Current RSL accruals above 6 months will be retained and others converted with a formula equivalent to receiving 100% pay for RSL leave. 

The bargaining committee recognizes this deal does not provide a full return for professionals on the value of their RSL entitlements. It does, however, provide more than the original mediator’s report in that it retains accrued leave at full value and provides professionals with 9 additional PD days per year going forward. This equates to a value of 3.6% of annual income. 

AUFA’s bargaining team is recommending this deal because we believe it is the best that can be achieved under current circumstances. The provincial government’s secret mandate has seriously undermined the basic integrity of the bargaining process, and severely limited what can, and cannot, be achieved at the table. This is especially true in terms of matters involving money. 

As always, of course, any final decision on whether to accept this tentative agreement rests solely in the hands of AUFA members. This is, after all, your collective agreement, and AUFA’s bargaining committee works for you.  

 On behalf of the Bargaining Committee, 

Jason Foster 

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.

RSL for Professionals: Testimonials

The item that has gotten a lot of attention from members is the employer’s proposed removal of Research & Study Leave (RSL) for professional staff.  While we know that not all professional staff are able to take this leave (for many reasons including lack of staffing to cover for their leave, a workload that is too heavy, and that it wouldn’t be approved by their manager), the minor payout that AU has offered is not a fair compensation for this benefit. 

In a recent survey of professional staff (with 140 respondents and just under 200 professional members of AUFA): 

• 65.9% of respondents said that RSL was important to them 

• 66.67% said that it was likely that they would take professional RSL in the future 

• 19.9% thought it was acceptable to trade RSL for a one-time flat payout of around $10,000 (which is the current offer) 

As many members have pointed out, the push to remove this benefit from professional members relies on the assumption that AU professional members are not important members of our research community and that their continuing studies are not important to the work they do for the university. 

Here are testimonials from members about why RSL leave is important for them: 

Testimonial 1: 

I left a PhD program to work for AU, so I was thrilled to have the opportunity to return to some of my graduate research once I accumulated enough Research and Study Leave (RSL). Following that first RSL in 2012, I published three articles in top-tier peer-reviewed ecology and entomology journals. In my most recent RSL, in 2018, I edited websites, tested and edited educational board games, and edited books of poetry, a fiction novel, and an academic monograph. Diversifying and broadening my experience has made me a better editor and has been hugely valuable to my work in FHSS, with its wide range of courses and styles—from statistics to creative writing, from psychology to political science. 

Professional Development leave is certainly very useful for attending a webinar or a three-day conference. Even if I took all of my PD time at once, however, I could not write research articles or edit a manuscript. RSL provides me with something PD or an extra 9% compensation would not: time. The time to pursue education or research or service not only improves the work that I do for AU, it also reinforces the university’s credibility as an employer and as a provider of high-quality educational materials. 

Testimonial 2: 

As a senior software developer with over 15 years of experience, I took a significant pay cut to come work at AU two and a half years ago. With the ever-increasing costs of everything while trying to raise a young family, taking this pay cut has not been easy. However, I wanted to come work here because I would be able to pursue graduate studies and I would be allowed to take R&S leave to complete my research. I am currently enrolled in the MScIS program and the intended focus of my research will be around learning analytics and the application of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in learning management systems. 

AU's proposals to eliminate R&S leave for professionals are incredibly shortsighted for several reasons. First, the outcomes of my research are likely to be beneficial to AU as they will be focused on using emerging technologies in distance education. This research is directly applicable to my day-to-day work and will provide me with a foundation that will allow me to identify innovations and efficiencies to improve our services. 

Likewise, by being able to take R&S leave, I will be able to research my chosen topics in-depth and focus on delivering meaningful and novel findings, rather than just trying to complete my thesis so I can be done with it. As I am sure that many academics would agree, meaningful research requires time, effort, dedication, and perseverance. R&S leave allows professionals to focus solely on their studies rather than having to balance them against many other priorities. 

Furthermore, R&S leave for professionals is a significant competitive advantage for AU when it comes to hiring new IT staff. Every other institution can offer you more money, but few other companies have the framework and the capabilities to offer you something like R&S leave. There is a significant shortage of IT professionals in every field right now. If anything, AU should be looking to boost R&S benefits to use them to hire talented, skilled, and hardworking individuals who are passionate about their career. 

Finally, professional R&S leave is a benefit that is likely to cause strong debate. It is not a coincidence that AU is using it to create division amongst AUFA union members. For those that are reluctant to support this benefit because they do not understand its value or do not believe that professionals should have it, I urge you to think about what AU will try to eliminate in the next round of bargaining and who will be willing to stand with you in solidarity. 

Bargaining Update: Mediator Issues Report

After three days of mediation (March 11, 17 and 22), the mediator has issued a report to the parties with recommendations for a possible settlement. The AUFA bargaining committee has decided to forward the report directly to AUFA members for their consideration. A vote on whether to accept the report will be held on Tuesday, March 29 in lieu of the planned strike vote. There is a Town Hall on Friday, March 25 at 2 pm to discuss the report and next steps. 

Significantly, AUFA’s bargaining team is not making a recommendation to members on whether to accept or reject the report. Instead the bargaining team has elected to remain neutral during the voting process. The decision to hold a vote on the report is anchored in AUFA’s broader commitment to democracy, and to AUFA members’ right to make the decisions that will shape what is, ultimately, their collective agreement. 

This blog post outlines the key recommendations in the mediator’s report. The Town Hall will provide further analysis of the recommendations. Members can find a copy of the mediator’s report here.

Wages and Allowances 

The mediator is recommending the same cost-of-living (COLA) settlement seen at other universities: 

• July 1, 2020: 0% 

• July 1, 2021: 0% 

• July 1, 2022: 0%  

• April 1, 2023: 1.25% 

• December 1, 2023: 1.5% 

• An additional 0.5% retroactive to December 1, 2023, payable in February or March 2024 subject to a “Gain Sharing Formula” linked to provincial GDP growth 

AUFA members will also receive enhancements to their working-from-home allowances: 

• Members who have not received $2000 for home-office set-up will be paid the difference between what they were paid and $2000 (e.g., members who received $1000 will receive an additional $1000). This payment is taxable. 

• Academic staff members who previously received $2000 for office set up and have been employed for at least six years shall receive a one-time taxable $800 payment for home office expenses. 

• Going forward all members required to work from home will receive $35 biweekly for printer and internet expenses (up from $61/month for academics and $25/biweekly for professionals).  

Research and Study Leave (RSL) 

Professionals, except librarians, will no longer be eligible for RSL as of the date of ratification. Professional members who are currently on RSL or have RSL approved will have their leaves honoured.  

Going forward, professionals will be allowed to carryover their annual entitlement of 21 days of PD leave to a maximum of 84 days (i.e., the equivalent of 4 years of PD entitlement) and will be able to request leaves up to that maximum. 

Professionals will have two options for dealing with accrued Research and Study Leave entitlements: 

• Option One: Unused RSL leave can be surrendered in exchange for a one-time payment of $10,500. Any unused Professional Development days dating back to 2020 shall be returned to the member’s PD bank. 

• Option Two: Members convert accrued RSL leave to PD leave up to a maximum of 12 months at 100% salary (using the conversion calculation in the current collective agreement). They will be allowed to request leaves up to the amount in their PD leave account. Carryover of PD days will not begin until the member’s account drops below 84 days (i.e., members will continue to earn PD days, but cannot carry them over at the end of the year). 

Employer proposals regarding academic RSL are withdrawn and the status quo remains.  

Other Provisions 

Employer-sought concessions regarding discipline (Article 7), grievance procedure (Article 8), appeals (Article 9), position reduction for academics (Article 12), layoffs for professionals, and probation review for professionals are withdrawn. In all cases, existing language remains. Small changes are made to professional position evaluation review, but members retain the right to appeal decisions under Article 9. 

The mediator recommends establishing a joint committee to review the current academic tenure and promotion process (in Article 3) to make recommendations for the next round of bargaining.  

Some recommendations address AUFA concerns in bargaining, including: 

• Enhancing occupational health and safety language (Article 25). 

• Reforming the Joint Benefits Committee to make it more effective in addressing AUFA members’ benefits concerns. 

• Extending unpaid compassionate care leave to 27 weeks and expanding eligibility to include circumstances of “grave illness”. 

• Inserting language in Article 3 to allow Indigenous Elders and knowledge holders to be recognized as eligible external reviewers for promotion applications from Indigenous academic members. 

• Including a new letter of understanding that involves the joint employment equity committee in an advisory capacity in the development of AU’s equity, diversity, and inclusion action plan and in an employment equity review process. 

• Both parties agreeing to abide by the Labour Relations Board decision regarding the status of Deans in the bargaining unit.  

Vote Results and Next Steps 

The results of the March 29 ratification vote will determine the next steps of the process.  

If members vote to accept the mediator’s report, then it will be considered a ratification of a new collective agreement, bargaining will come to an end, and the provisions in the report take effect as part of the collective agreement.  

If members vote to reject the report, then the parties will return to the bargaining table. The parties are free to bargain directly or continue to use the services of the mediator. Each party will revert to their previous positions before mediation. The mediator’s recommendations may or may not be considered in future bargaining.  

On behalf of the bargaining committee, 

Jason Foster 

Putting Research and Study Leave into Context

As AU and AUFA continue bargaining, language changes represent the biggest gulf between the two parties. The item that has gotten perhaps the most attention from members is the employer’s proposed removal of Research & Study Leave (RSL) for professional staff.  

Previous posts have provided an analysis of the proposed changes and reflected members’ overwhelming rejection of them. Since the initial language was tabled in late January, AU’s team has signaled some minor movement by offering a small payout in exchange for the removal of the benefit for all professionals.  

While it seems that a large majority of members are opposed to this particular rollback, some members and observers may be wondering what all the fuss is about. This post responds to common concerns and puts this proposal in context.  

Concerns about professional RSL  

“Not everyone uses it” 

It has been pointed out that not every professional makes use of the RSL benefit: this is certainly true. But it’s also true that not every member makes equal use of other benefits. If anything, this is an argument for maintaining the benefit because it doesn’t cost the university anything when members choose not to apply.  

Professional members who take RSL usually find it enormously valuable, and they often return from their leave invigorated and more fully engaged in their work. Further, we’ve heard from numerous professional members who have said this benefit was a key reason they accepted employment at AU in the first place.  

We’ve also heard from many professional members who would like to access this benefit but are discouraged by the multiple barriers that often make it difficult to take this leave, including a lack of support from upper management. That professional RSLs are often shorter or part time speaks less to the value professional members place on the benefit and more to the flexible arrangements that are often the only way professional members can access this leave.  

“It’s hard to manage” 

A few members have raised concerns about operational impacts when staff take RSL. It is up to the employer to effectively manage the impact of leaves. Unfortunately, some areas do not manage this well, leading to leave denials or delays and associated stress and uncertainty. On the other hand, some teams do enjoy a healthy distribution of RSL and manage to balance workloads and impacts.  

With effective planning and support, RSL can be a net positive for individual staff members, their teams, and the university as a whole.  

“No one else has it” 

AU’s bargaining team co-chair recently highlighted that this benefit is uncommon within the sector. But there are a lot of things that make AU unique and difficult to compare to other universities in the province. Several members have shared that this benefit was specifically highlighted in their hiring process as a positive feature of employment at AU, and that it was a key factor in deciding to accept the relatively lower salary.  

Many members have even indicated they would support extending this benefit to all staff at AU, not just AUFA members. Rather than seeing collective bargaining as a race to the bottom, these members believe that we can and should be advocating for more respect and benefits to accrue to all members of the university community. Maintaining this valuable benefit for our members may also encourage other workers and employers to initiate something similar.   

“It should only be for academics” 

Another argument AU’s bargaining team is making seems to be that only academics take RSL as it is intended: to publish and disseminate research. Setting aside the fact that some professionals do indeed use the leave to research and publish (and the problems with the “publish or perish” culture in the academy), this is an extremely narrow view of the value of this benefit. Providing staff with dedicated time to focus on scholarly and professional pursuits is a way of demonstrating the respect and value that AU claims to have.   

Context matters 

The recent communication from AU’s bargaining team highlighted that AU’s offer of a one-time payout is time limited. Leaving aside the details of exactly how much this benefit might be worth in purely financial terms, there are a number of issues to highlight with this approach.  

First, the timing is very curious. AU only tabled its full proposal in late January, after more than six months of active bargaining. If this RSL issue was such a priority for the employer, why was it not included with the in-going (incomplete) proposal tabled nearly one year ago? Why the rush now?  

The explanation for this current “take it or leave it” approach is that the one-time payout is only possible because of an “unexpected one-time forecasted favorable operating budget variance.” Previous communications from the provost have highlighted an approximately 12% drop in enrolments as a cause for concern. However, this drop likely represents a levelling out of longer-term enrolment trends after a large COVID-related increase. As well, AU is not facing the same deep cuts to operating grants as most other universities in this province. That is, AU seems to be in good financial health and can afford to maintain or improve AUFA members’ current benefits.  

Second, RSL is only one of several significant rollbacks included in the employer’s offer. It would also weaken protections against discipline, increase managerial control over academic promotion and tenure processes, remove workload protections, and reduce job security for professionals, among other changes. AU is now putting pressure on members to agree to these sweeping changes by offering a one-time payment that only relates to one item.  

Finally, many members have pointed out similarities between AU’s approach to bargaining and the attempt by the employer to remove professionals (as well as other academic staff!) from the AUFA bargaining unit in 2019-20. The implication that professionals don’t deserve the same benefits and protections as academics are especially reminiscent of that distressing time.  

Divide and conquer 

Given these factors, it is difficult to see AU’s proposal and pressure tactics as anything other than a divide and conquer strategy. AU’s communications have consistently painted AUFA as aggressively preparing for a strike, when the reality is that AUFA members have been forced to defend our valued benefits and protections from an employer seeking sweeping and negative changes in our contract.  

AUFA members came together to prevent the de-designation of hundreds of colleagues, and we can come together in solidarity again. In polls, surveys, town hall meetings, and other forums, AUFA members have overwhelmingly signaled that they do not support the employer’s attempts to sow division and discord.  

A strike is a last resort if the employer refuses to back down from the deep, insulting, and unnecessary rollbacks it is seeking. While a strike would be distressing and disruptive for members, our colleagues, and our students, the alternative could be much worse in the longer term. Being forced to accept these rollbacks would lead to burnout, turnover, and extremely low morale – at a time when faculty and staff would much rather feel respected, valued, and positive about the future of this university.  

Rhiannon Rutherford 

Chair, AUFA Membership Engagement Committee 

Your Turn  

The Membership Engagement Committee is coordinating member-to-member calls to chat about how folks are feeling about bargaining. If you would appreciate a personal contact from another member, please leave your name below.  

You may also use this space to share feedback about the bargaining process or anything else that’s on your mind.  

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: AUFA Presents Counter-Proposals

AU and AUFA met for a part day of bargaining on March 2, as AU representatives were unable to make themselves available for much of the afternoon. AUFA used the limited time to present its own package of counter-proposals in an effort to move toward a fair deal. This update provides highlights of AUFA’s proposals. An analysis of where things stand as we move into formal mediation next week will come in the following days.

AUFA continues to reject the list of concessions demanded by AU, including reductions to professionals’ rights, cuts to research and study leave, the removal of Deans from the bargaining unit, and negative changes to grievance and appeals processes. Our new package reflects this stand.

AUFA made a counter-offer on the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). AU’s proposal on Monday offered the settlement given to AUPE (2.75% to 3.25% provided late in the contract).

AUFA’s new COLA offer is:

• July 1, 2020: 0%

• July 1, 2021: 0%

• July 1, 2022: An average of 2.5% increase to base salary awarded as flat dollar amount per-member, pro-rated for FTE.

• July 1, 2023: An average of 2.5% increase to base salary awarded as flat dollar amount per-member, pro-rated for FTE.

AUFA’s COLA proposal is designed to increase equity among all AUFA members. If COLA is distributed as a percentage, as it has been for years, then members higher up on the wage scale receive a larger wage increase in real dollar terms than do those lower on the wage scale. For example, a 2.5% COLA for someone earning $75,000 equals $1,875. For someone earning $150,000, that same percentage increase equals $3,750. In contrast, AUFA’s proposal ensures that each AUFA member receives a COLA of approximately $2,600 in each of the last two years, based on AUFA members’ current average salary. AUFA’s proposal is meant to correct the inequities inherent in AU’s tendency in recent years to lowball new hires on starting salary.

AUFA’s latest proposals maintain our existing requests expanding appeals rights to disputes over workload and performance, securing fair work-from-home allowances and improvements to equity language, creating four floating vacation days, and ensuring protections against the de-designation of AUFA members. We also renewed our call for a joint pay equity review process.

Finally, AUFA amended its proposals for stronger occupational health and safety language and new contracting out language. Both remain on the table for discussion.

AUFA’s package did not include a counter-offer to the employer’s proposal on tenure and promotion processes (Article 3). AUFA is still deliberating on its response to that item.

AU has not yet responded to the package. The parties enter formal mediation on March 8.

On behalf of the bargaining committee,

Jason Foster

Chair