AU Files Baffling Unfair Labour Practice Against AUFA

All AUFA members received notice of an unfair labour practice (ULP) recently filed against the association by Athabasca University, alleging bad faith bargaining. Some members have inquired what this is about. ULPs are allegations that the employer or union has engaged in behaviour prohibited by the Labour Relations Code. In this case, the employer’s complaint is about Holiday cards sent to them by the Job Action Committee (JAC).  The complaint alleges that these cards are a “mafia-esque” intimidation campaign against their families.

Here’s what the cards look like:

Background

During December, AUFA members participated in a meme campaign organized by JAC. These were intended as both a lighthearted way for members to share their concerns, and to pressure AU into bargaining in good faith. The meme campaign culminated in Holiday cards being mailed to the home addresses of the two bargaining co-chairs, and Interim President. You may recall that AUFA filed its own ULP with the Labour Board on September 24, 2021 alleging, among other things, that AU was bargaining in bad faith by withholding its monetary proposals. The employer eventually did release their full monetary offer on January 21st, a full 570 days after bargaining began.

The cards are a form of leafletting, an old union standby of distributing leaflets during bargaining to raise awareness and pressure the boss. In this case, the intention was to ensure the meme campaign reached the senior administrators behind AU’s bargaining strategy. The cards were sent to home addresses as AU is a work from home employer.

The following are quotes from the Unfair Labour Practice that detail the substance of the complaint:

AUFA’s conduct is illustrative of a very clear intent to engage in unlawful intimidation. The Christmas Cards were sent to the homes of the University’s bargaining committee’s Co-Chairs, and the University’s Interim President. They could have been sent to their offices, but AUFA made the choice to send them to their homes. From a common-sense perspective, in the circumstances, there is simply no reason that AUFA would send such acard to an individual’s home address, rather than their business address, other than to sendthe message: “we know where you live”. It is an implicit threat the safety of the recipient and that of their families.

…

This Mafia-esque communication tactic by AUFA clearly falls outside of the scope of communications that are permitted under Section 60 of the Code.

The notion that the cards were meant to imply impending violence upon the families of AU administrators is a complete overreaction and not based upon any reasonable facts. The Holiday cards have no direct nor implied threat, nor sense of what is being threatened. Both sides in bargaining have a full right to send mail to one another over bargaining, provided the bargaining teams are not circumvented.

Mafia-esque is a potentially defamatory claim, as it compares us to a criminal organization. We are a strong union who will protect and advance our rights, but in a manner that is both legal and transparent. Union pressure tactics are uncomfortable (that’s the point), but they are permissible and normal as they are the basic form of leverage in negotiations.

Bad Faith

Although the key issue in the ULP is the Holiday cards, the complaint in general is about bad faith bargaining, alleging that AUFA has no interest in signing a deal and instead wishes to strike for its own sake. Considering the Holiday cards relate to our request for AU to table its full monetary offer, this is a nonsense argument. Furthermore, the cards do not come from our Bargaining Team but rather the Job Action Committee who have distinct roles. This is not an attempt to bargain, as AU alleges, but a pressure tactic on the administrators and counsel who direct bargaining.

AU’s assertion that AUFA intends to strike no matter what is untrue. Many blog posts and town halls have underlined that strike preparedness is required for effective negotiations, but that we are negotiating towards a deal, not a strike for its own sake. A strike for no reason is also an impossibility as a strike is a vote by the entire AUFA membership, not something willed into existence by AUFA executive. As communicated repeatedly, JAC’s job is to get us into a strike-ready position while the Bargaining Team tries to get a deal. If we do not have a strike ready position, our Bargaining Team will lack the support and leverage they need to get that deal. Organizing for successful job action takes years, and failure to do so would be negligent.

Summary

None of this would be necessary if AU would drop its concessions-only approach to bargaining. For the past decade every proposal from AU has involved wage freezes or cuts and massive erosion of our protections and rights (particularly for professionals). In order to get a deal, our only approach is to apply escalating pressure with a potential strike at the end. The pressure is uncomfortable, but it is also uncomfortable to work for bosses who so flagrantly disrespect their staff.

Athabasca University is a tremendously successful university not despite us, but because of us. Investment in AU staff is an investment in AU itself, and happy staff who have strong rights and protections will improve the university in turn. They need us, and we are done being a piggy bank they can try to smash every three years. 

David Powell

AUFA President

Concordia strike ends in faculty victory

Ten days ago, 89% of the Concordia University of Edmonton Faculty Association (CUEFA) voted in favour of a new collective agreement, bringing Alberta’s first post-secondary strike to a quick and positive conclusion after 11 days. This blog post outlines what we know about the settlement, and provides some analysis for AUFA members. It concludes with an update on bargaining at Lethbridge and AUFA strike preparations.

Concordia Settlement

Through a combination of solidarity within Concordia and widespread support from outside the institution, CUEFA made crucial gains in both workload and salary. It was also able to retain member ownership over intellectual property, and to avoid rollbacks to disciplinary language.

Concordia’s administration agreed to reduce annual instructional loads for teaching faculty by 25%, from 8 courses to 6 courses, thereby enabling CUEFA members to manage increasing university expectations around research and research outputs.

Like our members, CUEFA members receive annual merit increments (the CUE term is “steps”) based on satisfactory job performance reviews. These annual increments continue to operate under the new agreement. The CUEFA deal also contains two types of additional wage increases during the four years of the agreement (July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2025).

• Inflationary adjustments: Over the four years of the agreement, salaries and grids will be adjusted as follows: 0%, 0%, 0% and 1.5%.

• Salary adjustments: On both of July 1, 2021 and January 1, 2023, CUE members will receive an additional (or “bonus”) salary increment.

Together, the inflationary and salary adjustments in this agreement will improve CUEFA members’ salaries by 4.39% to 6.85% (varies by member). CUEFA members will also continue to receive their normal annual salary increments.

Analysis

The CUEFA agreement will result in immediate salary increases greater than the increase contained in the autumn AUPE government services deal (2.75% to 3.25%). The AUPE deal appears to match the current provincial mandate in PSE.

That said, as important as CUEFA’s salary gains are, they’ll still likely result in a modest net loss of CUEFA members’ purchasing power over the life of the agreement. Alberta inflation from January to December, 2021 was 4.8%. Inflation is projected at 3% in 2022 and 2.5% in 2023.

Further, while it is important to note that monetary gains in the CUEFA deal increase member salaries, the top step of the CUEFA salary grids only move up 1.5% (in the fourth year of the deal). That is to say, the top of the CUEFA grid does not move up with inflation.

What this means is that the purchasing power of the maximum salary that CUEFA members can earn will be significantly eroded by inflation. For unions (like AUFA) that have a defined-benefit pension plan, stagnant grids also reduce the value of members’ eventual pension benefits (because the maximum annual salary is lower). To avoid such outcomes, most unions seek increases that apply to both salaries and salary grids. For example, AUFA’s opening offer is a 3% increase to salaries and grids in each of the proposed three years of the deal.

Overall, CUEFA resisted what would have been devastating rollbacks, and won significant and immediate gains for its members. CUEFA’s circumstances were slightly different than those facing AUFA. For one thing, Concordia is a private institution, and therefore was not bound by secret government mandates. And for another, Concordia is rolling in cash.

Acknowledging those differences, the CUEFA strike tells us that it is possible to make big gains if a faculty association is prepared to strike. It also tells us that, if we’re not prepared to fight, we will be stuck taking rollbacks.

CUEFA applied operational, financial, and reputational pressure to Concordia to get a deal. The strike forced administrators to cancel all classes, and, consequently, lose out on tuition revenue and suffer significant reputational harm. Strike support from groups of Concordia students (although notably not from the students’ union) intensified the reputational pressure.

AUFA’s Job Action Committee is presently exploring the forms of pressure AUFA can exert on AU to reach an agreement. For example, AU’s sponsorship of the Tenth Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning in Calgary from September 14 to 16 presents several opportunities to exert reputational pressure on AU.

Mediation unsuccessful at Lethbridge

Meanwhile, the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) announced Monday night that formal mediation with the University of Lethbridge had concluded without a deal. The mediator declined to recommend a settlement because the parties were too far apart.

The conclusion of mediation triggers a 14-day “cooling off” period (during which time the parties can continue to bargain if they wish). At the end of the cooling off period (February 1), the union can apply to take a strike vote. Once ULFA members have authorized a strike, a strike can begin at any time with 72 hours notice.

A strong strike vote can sometimes result in renewed bargaining as the employer confronts the possibility of a strike. At Concordia, a strike vote triggered movement by the employer on workload language. Nevertheless, a strike was still necessary for the employer to agree to reasonable salary improvements and a complete withdrawal of unfair language rollbacks.

AUFA bargaining

At Wednesday’s AUFA strike prep meeting, 283 attendees (65% of members) received a brief update on bargaining. Two items of note from the meeting are:

• Vote on picketing plan: An electronic membership vote on the proposed picketing plan passed. There were 259 votes cast (~59% of the membership), with 206 in favour, 20 opposed and 33 abstentions. Discounting abstentions, 206 of 226 is 91.2% in favour. JAC will now move forward with strike planning.

• Essential Services Agreement: On January 4th, almost 4 months after AUFA applied for an essential services agreement (ESA) exemption, AU finally agreed to AUFA’s proposal. AUFA and AU are currently completing some paperwork on that matter. AUFA hopes an ESA exemption will be issued in early February. Receiving an ESA exemption allows AUFA or AU to apply for formal mediation. Formal mediation is one of the last steps before AUFA is able to proceed to a strike vote. The timing of such a vote is uncertain but the Job Action Committee is working towards a March 15 strike-readiness deadline.

Toronto-area flying picket

AUFA members in Toronto are organizing a flying picket. If you are interested in participating in such a picket during a strike or lockout, please email torontoaufa@gmail.com.

If you are an AUFA member outside of Athabasca, Edmonton, Calgary, and Toronto who is interested in organizing a local picket during a strike, please contact Bob Barnetson (barnetso@athabascau.ca).

Strike Callers Wanted

The Membership Engagement Committee is recruiting 40 AUFA members to act as callers during any upcoming work stoppage. Callers would be responsible for making weekly phone calls to other AUFA members to check in with them, pass on information, and solicit feedback.

Time spent calling would count towards a member’s weekly strike service. If you are interested in volunteering, please contact Rhiannon Rutherford (rhiannon.rutherford@athabascau.ca). Half-day caller training sessions will be held February 11 (almost full) and repeated on February 18. This workshop is open to all AUFA members and does not obligate you to participate as a caller.

Jason Foster, Chair

Bargaining Committee

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Solidarity picket and shifting offers at U of A

On Friday, 20 AUFA members joined about 200 academic and non-academic staff at a lunch-hour picket at the University of Alberta. The academic and non-academic staff associations have been frustrated by threats of rollbacks and a lack of progress at the table. Thanks to these AUFA members, who spent their lunch hour showing solidarity. Faculty members from MacEwan and NAIT were also in attendance.

The U of A denied staff permission to picket on campus, so an initial rally was held on the sidewalk on 87th Avenue. U of A workers then proceeded to lead a march though campus, chanting “Whose campus? Our campus!” before rallying in the quad.

On the same day, the U of A’s admin posted a surprise new offer to its faculty association. The nub of the U of A’s proposed settlement is:

• A four-year salary freeze, ending in June of 2024.

• Further negotiations to slow the growth of faculty salaries over their career. Absent success (i.e., revenue neutral solution) by February, the whole offer becomes void.

• Hard salary caps for lecturers (i.e., teaching-only faculty).

• All other demands for rollbacks would be withdrawn.

This shift away from the U of A’s early threats of massive rollbacks tell us a couple of things:

• Mandates have likely changed: The government has altered its secret mandate to the U of A’s administration (requiring salary rollbacks). Rumours suggest this mandate change is sector-wide, although we cannot yet confirm this. These same rumours suggest the new mandate is a series of wage freezes to spring of 2023 (cynically right before the next election), when there would be a small cost-of-living bump. This increase likely tracks the 1.25% increase AUPE accepted for government workers.

• Mandates change with pressure: What this tells us is that government interference in the collective bargaining process is not set in stone. Widespread UCP unpopularity and growing labour unrest likely means the UCP is hoping to avoid public-sector strikes by offering workers tiny increases. Additional pressure on public sector employers and the government may well result in further mandate changes.

• Progress is modest: The U of A’s new offer (four zeros) is better than its most recent offer (-3% and then three zeros). But, in the context of inflation of 4% or more per year, this still entails a large loss of purchasing power.

• Bad offers are a framing strategy: Proposing a series of harsh rollbacks only to walk away from most of them is a clear employer strategy. Its purpose is to frame a lousy offer as some kind of victory of workers (because we avoided an even worse offer), even though the actual offer is still lousy. The countermove to this employer strategy is maintaining a credible strike threat, forcing employers to move off their slightly-less-lousy offer to one that actually benefits workers.

The Association of Academic Staff: University of Alberta (AASUA) has filed an unfair labour practices complaint against the U of A regarding this offer. The crux of the complaint is that the U of A allegedly launched an end-run around the faculty association and is attempting to negotiate directly with the membership. The facts, according to the faculty association are:

• The last bargaining date was November 10, with no dates expected until the new year.

• The employer phoned the AAUSA bargaining chair late in the day on November 25 (as the chair was getting on a plane) and verbally explained a new offer would be coming by email. The union arranged a meeting of its bargaining team for today (November 29) to review the offer.

• Without notice to the union or any further discussion with the AASUA bargaining chair, the employer then posted the offer publicly on November 26, claiming that the offered had been ”tabled”.

This behaviour, according to the union, is not bargaining in good faith. The offer was never presented at the bargaining table and the union was not given sufficient opportunity to review and understand the offer and communicate it to its members. In effect, the employer is interfering with the union’s ability to represent its members. The sequence of events suggests that this was an intentional effort to undermine the union.

While the AASUA does not speculate about what the U of A hopes to achieve through this behaviour, one possibility is that the U of A is laying the groundwork for a proposal vote. Alberta’s Labour Relations Code allows each side one opportunity per round of bargaining to present an offer directly to the other side for a vote. If accepted, the offer becomes the new contract.

The subtext of the U of A’s November 26 communication is “this deal will let you avoid a strike.” What gets lost in that message is that the deal requires the faculty to take (another) wage freeze, slow salary growth, and throw teaching-only faculty under the bus. Making members aware of these important trade-offs and the corrosive effect of the employer’s wedge tactics is one of the roles of the union and, in part, why unions get so shirty when employers communicate directly with members.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch, AUFA’s bargaining team returns to the table on November 30th. AUFA continues to wait for AU to table the 14 articles that it withheld from its opening offer, including its monetary position. Progress is unlikely until AUFA can see and evaluate AU’s full offer. AUFA also continues to wait for the Alberta Labour Relations Board to hear the unfair labour practice complaint AUFA filed in September about AU’s unwilling to present a full offer.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Bargaining Update: AU refuses to present monetary offer because it fears an immediate strike

AUFA and AU met on September 14 and 15 to resume negotiations. AU continued to refuse to provide its full proposal or its monetary position or provide a timeline for when it will table them. AUFA once again articulated that AU’s refusal to provide a full package is undermining trust and impeding progress at the table.  

One of the reasons AU gave for not presenting their monetary proposal was that they believe that, when they do, it will lead AUFA to want to strike immediately. “As soon as we table it, you will immediately declare impasse and strike”, said Chantel Kassongo, AU’s external lawyer contracted to lead negotiations.  

It is useful to know that AU has an opening proposal ready. It is not surprising that AU is likely going to seek wage rollbacks. That AU expects its opening proposal to trigger a strike does not absolve AU of its obligation to provide a full proposal as part of its duty to bargain in good faith. 

During the exchange, Kassongo expressed displeasure with how AUFA is communicating with its members. AUFA’s bargaining team responded by saying AUFA’s communications with its members are no concern of AU’s. In response, Kassongo said “It is our concern. They are our employees before they are your members. If they don’t have a job, they aren’t members”. It is hard to know what to make of that statement. An employer interfering in a union’s communication with union members would be committing an unfair labour practice.  

As for substantive matters, AU presented a revised proposal regarding academic freedom. They abandoned their original proposal of entirely new language and instead presented amendments to existing language. The new proposal addresses some of AUFA’s concerns but other concerns remain, including removal of “freedom from institutional censorship” and inclusion of a statement placing academic freedom in the context of the university’s responsibility to its academic mission. The biggest concern is AU’s continued insistence on removing professional freedom from the agreement entirely.  

AU also proposed changes to the equity provisions. AU’s proposal eliminates the Employment Equity Committee entirely and includes a letter of understanding (commitments that do not make up a part of the permanent agreement) promising to deliver an “institutional equity, diversity, and inclusion framework and action plan” by April 1, 2023. AU’s proposal does not indicate what process will be used to develop this framework or if AUFA members will be included in the process. In the AUFA bargaining team’s evaluation, the proposal amounts to removing the one formal, albeit flawed, process we have for improving equity at AU and replacing it with a “trust us” approach to developing a plan. 

AUFA was able to present in detail our proposal around occupational health and safety (OHS), which aims to codify in the agreement workers’ safety rights and an effective joint health and safety committee. This conversation was productive. 

The parties also continued discussion on the grievance procedure, to which AU proposes significant changes. The parties have a better understanding of each other’s position on this issue. 

We have two more days of bargaining scheduled on October 25 and 29. AUFA’s bargaining team is not hopeful AU will present the remainder of their opening proposal or their monetary position on those days.  

Overall, the AUFA bargaining team is growing increasingly frustrated with AU’s unwillingness to present some of the most important parts of their offer after nearly six months of bargaining. AU’s unwillingness to present an opening offer is, frankly, bizarre and I’ve seen nothing like this behaviour in 25 years in the labour movement. 

The bargaining team invites AUFA members to express any concerns they have about AU’s behaviour at the bargaining table directly to the three members of AU’s bargaining team who are AU employees. 

Alain May, alainm@athabascau.ca 

Margaret Kierylo, mkierylo@athabascau.ca 

Jessica Butts Scott, jscott@athabascau.ca 

Perhaps hearing directly from AUFA members will change AU’s behaviour to the bargaining table. Please copy AUFA (aufahq@aufa.ca) on your correspondence. 

Jason Foster, Chair 

AUFA Bargaining Team 

AU de-designates deans; delays implementation

AU’s Board of Governors (BoG) has been considering an application by the AU executive to de-designate the deans from the AUFA bargaining unit. The business case developed by the Provost to support this de-designation was deeply defective. AUFA provided a response to the executive’s application, suggesting that AU should bargain this issue and advanced proposals about designation in collective bargaining.

The BoG’s Human Resource and Compensation Committee (HRCC) voted on May 21, 2021 to de-designate the deans. AUFA and the deans were informed of this this week, nearly a month later.

The BoG has decided to delay the implementation of this change until the resolution of a complaint filed by AUFA to the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB). The nub of this complaint is that decanal de-designation constitutes a change of terms and conditions of employment during collective bargaining (which is a prohibited practice).

The Labour Board is holding a mediation meeting about this complaint on July 7. If the matter is not resolved via mediation, then the complaint will proceed to hearing. AUFA is seeking a hearing as soon as possible (because violating the freeze period affects our ability to bargain). AU is suggesting the earliest they could be ready for a hearing is March of 2022.

AUFA has advised all candidates in the current decanal searches of AU’s intent to de-designate and the implications of de-designation.

In addition to the current complaint, AUFA has the option of appealing AU’s de-designation to the ALRB. While the basis of the appeal is still being sorted, the substance of the Provost’s business case are likely to be at issue.

AU has asserted the deans don’t do this combination of work and thus don’t meet the (highly contestable) definition of academic that AU just established. As it turns out:

• Teaching: Four of the five deans perform direct teaching. The fifth dean (who does not teach) was parachuted in from administrative leave following the termination of the dean of FHD. Indeed, the deans who are supervising graduate students would be forced to give that up if they are de-designated, because the Faculty of Graduate Studies regulations require supervisors to be full-time and continuing faculty members.

• Service: All of the deans serve on university governance committees.

• Research: All of the deans are engaged in scholarly research.

AU has also argued that deans should be excluded because they perform managerial functions, including making decisions with respect to hiring, promotion, discipline, and discharge, and that they have an important role in labour relations within AU. This assertion founders in several ways:

• Section 58.1(4) of the Labour Relations Code explicitly allows for academics who perform managerial functions to be considered employees and thus eligible for membership in faculty association.

• Article 3.5 of the collective agreement outlines how hiring occurs. A search committee makes a recommendation to the VPA and the VPA requests the President make an offer. Deans are not decision makers in the hiring process.

• Article 3.6 outlines how promotion works. A promotion review committee makes a recommendation to the VPA and the VPA makes a recommendation that the President promote or not promote. Deans are not decision makers in the promotion process.

• Article 7 outlines how discipline and termination works. A dean can investigate a concern (although in practice, HR does the investigation) and then makes a recommendation to the VPA who, then decides if discipline is warranted and what the discipline (which can include termination) shall be. Deans are not decision makers in the discipline and termination process.

• Deans have effectively no role in labour relations as it affects AUFA members. Deans may have a role in labour relations regarding CUPE tutors or AUPE support staff. This is neither relevant to nor precludes their membership in AUFA.

AU has also asserted that the goals of deans in bargaining will likely conflict with those of other AUFA members. AU has not substantiated this assertion. To date, AUFA has been unable to find any instances of meaningful conflicts of interest occurring.

Dave Powell, President

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