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.  

AUFA Executive Determines All Expenditures Are Core Under Bill 32

On February 1, 2022, the final changes mandated by Alberta’s Bill 32, the Restoring Balance in Alberta’s Workplaces Act (2020), came into effect. The bill makes a distinction between core and non-core uses of union dues. According to the bill, core activities are the normal business of administering a trade union to best defend the interests of its members, while non-core activities, such as contributions toward political or social causes, are of indirect or no benefit to dues payers.

Examples of core expenditures include legal expenses for grievances, union staff salaries, and conference attendance. Examples of non-core dues include donations to political parties or political campaigns.

The bill requires the following:

• The union must distinguish core from non-core activities as a percentage of expenditures and then inform its members accordingly.

• If some activities are deemed non-core, the union must hold a dues election to allow members to choose whether they agree to have a portion of their dues used to help pay for non-core activities. (Members who do not opt in therefore pay slightly lower dues.)

• Members who disagree with the union’s decisions may pursue an appeal with the Alberta Labour Relations Board.

AUFA’s Determination

The AUFA executive has determined that all AUFA expenditures are core. This means that, according to our analysis of the bill and associated regulations, AUFA does not and will not spend money from dues on activities that are deemed non-core.

As a result, AUFA is not required to run a dues election. Dues payments will continue as normal. However, AUFA members now have a right to challenge AUFA’s use of dues at the Alberta Labour Relations Board through the appeal mechanism mentioned above. A successful challenge would require future dues elections or a change to the AUFA budget.

The AUFA budget is presented to members each year at the General Membership Meeting in May. It is separated by expense type, showing both the actual expenses of the previous fiscal year (which runs April to March) and then the budgeted expenses for the next yet. Any details on last year’s expenditures or anticipated expenditures are available to AUFA members from Treasurer Gail Leicht at treasurer@aufa.ca

Donations and Affiliation Dues

What exactly should be determined non-core is not especially clear in the bill and associated regulations, and unions across the province have come to slightly different interpretations. Donations and affiliation dues fall into a grey area.

Donations to political parties are clearly non-core, but AUFA does not donate to political parties, and the current executive has no intention of starting to do so. Donations that may or may not fall into the broader category of “social causes” are less clear-cut—some “causes” may indeed directly impact members, while others are more indirect. AUFA’s donation budget, however, is 0.006% of the total budget—a figure much too small to meaningfully separate from biweekly dues payments. In designating all activities as core, however, the AUFA executive will need to consider the constraints of Bill 32 in approving future donations. In addition, occasional large donations that fall beyond the scope of the year’s budget, which have been brought to members for a vote in the past, may need to be considered in the context of this bill.

Our provincial affiliate, the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations (CAFA), held an extended discussion of whether affiliation dues are core or non-core. This is another grey area and remains to be put to a legal test. In the light of this discussion, it is AUFA’s view that belonging to a provincial labour organization is a normal, core function of a union. The same applies to our affiliation with the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). The AUFA executive will keep an eye on the legal situation should this determination need to shift in the future.

Analysis

Bill 32 is a piece of overly complicated, unworkable legislation that attacks unions and even employers. The work required to split out non-core dues is excessively complex, and the practice of allowing unlimited labour board challenges concerning specific ways that various unions spend money could create a catastrophic number of hearings. This will in turn mean that important matters such as designation appeals or unfair labour practices will be even further delayed. In addition to the problems with the dues election portion of the bill, there are multiple other issues relating to union activity and labour rights in Alberta discussed in the linked articles below.

The bill also provides the current government with a way to undercut support for its political opponents. AUFA neither donates money to nor directly supports any political party. Nonetheless, we are caught in the crossfire of these political games. The bill is also hostile to basic democratic practice and majority rule. None of us are given the option of paying lower taxes or defunding “non-core” activities of our government. It might be pleasant to imagine being able to choose where our individual taxes go, but it would create a bureaucratic nightmare and prevent anyone in power from governing effectively.

Bill 32 is now subject to multiple legal challenges by unions across the province that are likely to take a long time to work out. The outcome of the next election may affect this bill as well. In other words, Bill 32’s future is unclear. What happens in the wake of a successful dues challenge is equally unclear. AUFA has therefore adopted a wait-and-see approach, and we will make adjustments accordingly as new information presents itself. Questions or concerns about AUFA’s determination are welcomed at president@aufa.ca.

Further Reading

AUFA’s own Jason Foster, who is also director of the Parkland Institute, has written extensively on Bill 32. Links to his analyses are provided below, along with links to Bill 32 and the accompanying regulations.

·       Bill 32 Regulations Continue Attack on Unions in Canada

·       Tipping the Balance: Bill 32, The Charter and the Americanization of Alberta’s Labour Relations System

·       Bill 32 Regulations Further Tip the Balance in Favour of Corporations

·       Bill 32 on Government of Alberta website

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

Possible employer responses to a strike

AUFA’s decision to seek formal mediation has moved AUFA and AU closer to a potential work stoppage. This blog examines how AU is likely to respond, including its communication strategies, work stoppage preparations, and efforts to promote scabbing.

Employer communication strategies

Employers typically seek to undercut union support in the run-up to a work stoppage through aggressive anti-union and anti-strike messaging. This messaging can occur during one-on-one and small-group conversations as well as through all-staff communications. Here are some things your boss might say and how you might respond.

Nobody wants a strike

Untrue. Strikes and lockouts occur when employers and workers can't come to a mutually acceptable deal. AU’s unwillingness to table a full offer for nine months and then its unwillingness to negotiate a fair and reasonable deal strongly suggests AU is consciously and deliberately trying to force a strike. AU through its actions and inactions is saying quite clearly that it wants a strike more than it wants to give AUFA members a fair deal.

A strike will hurt students

True. If AU forces AUFA to strike, students will experience disruptions both to their studies and to the administrative functions AU provides and upon which they rely. However, any responsibility for disruptions to students’ post-secondary experience must fall wholly on AU’s behaviour. To be clear, a strike is entirely avoidable if AU agrees to a fair deal. A strike is entirely a function of AU’s choices at the bargaining table.

Everybody loses during a strike

Partially true. A strike entails costs to both AUFA members (foregone salary) and AU (work disruption, negative publicity, reputational harm). Not standing up for our workplace rights, however, also entails costs, such as the consequences of accepting continued wage freezes in the face of steadily rising costs of living as well as major language rollbacks eroding our working conditions. The costs of not striking are borne solely by AUFA members.

But we’re like a family

Untrue. Your employer is not your family. AU hires you because they need work completed. AU is happy to watch your wages stagnate and to crank up your workload. Less than two years ago, AU tried to force two-thirds of AUFA members out of the union. And AU laid AUFA members off when poor, short-sighted Board decisions bankrupted AU in 2013. Does that sound like a family?

We can’t afford to pay you more

Untrue. AU has had operating surpluses every year in recent memory. AU is encouraging last-minute spending this year to hide the fact that AU again has a surplus. AU can certainly afford to pay higher salaries. AU’s bargaining position isn’t about what AU can afford to pay. It is about AU wanting to freeze your pay and give you nothing in return. Further, AU’s proposal to eliminate important AUFA member rights (e.g., professional freedom, professional appeals, equity obligations) has no connection whatsoever to AU’s financial situation.

AUFA will force you to strike

Untrue. AUFA is you and your coworkers. AUFA is also a democracy. A strike can only occur if a majority of AUFA members vote in favour of a strike. A strike is also a last resort—something to be considered only after months of negotiations and mediation have proved fruitless. In this way, a strike is something AU is forcing on AUFA members.

The union can’t win a strike

Untrue. Faculty Associations win new contracts by striking all of the time. Recent examples include the University of Manitoba, Concordia University of Edmonton, and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Most recently, Mount Royal University faculty negotiated a last-minute deal only by threatening a strike.

Unions win new collective agreements when the employer realizes that the cost of a work stoppage is greater than the cost of a new contract. AU is highly dependent on tuition revenue (~50%). Even the threat of a strike is likely to cause enrollments to plummet. An actual strike will severely damage AU’s revenues and reputation.

It would be a shame if AUFA was forced to strike to get a fair deal. But sometimes employers need to learn things the hard way.

Employer preparations

A strike by over 400 AUFA members would entail significant operational disruptions for AU. These disruptions would affect instruction as well as most administrative functions. Indeed, the purpose of a strike is to disrupt operations so significantly that the employer is forced to move off of its last bargaining position and negotiate an acceptable agreement.

Understandably, employers try to minimize the impact of any strike. Employer-side preparations typically entail identifying key processes affected by a work stoppage and ways to maintain those processes. This behaviour can include:

• re-tasking excluded (i.e., non-union) staff,

• asking workers in other unions to take on struck work,

• hiring non-union workers (i.e., scabs) to perform work,

• identifying AUFA members who may be induced to stay on the job (i.e., scab), and

• crafting messaging to shift the blame for a work stoppage from itself to the workers.

The Job Action Committee (JAC) has assessed AU’s prospects for successfully maintaining operations as low. AU is a complicated organization with ongoing work processes that are difficult to suspend or delay. Perhaps more importantly, AUFA members play critical roles in these processes. In terms of typical employer strategies available to AU:

• there are relatively few excluded staff members compared to the amount of work that AUFA members do,

• AUFA, AUPE and CUPE signed a solidarity pledge encouraging their members to refuse to perform struck work pursuant to s.149(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Code,

• there are no easily available sources of scabs to perform AUFA members’ work because the work performed by AUFA members is often too complex to be easily performed by scabs, and

• there are relatively few AUFA members who might scab.

Several AUFA members have asked questions about scabbing. Here are answers to the questions AUFA has received so far.

What is scabbing?

Scabbing is when AUFA members continue to work during a strike. We also sometimes use the term to refer to replacement workers hired by the employer during a strike.

Whether they strike or not, all union members will be affected by whatever collective agreement results from a strike, including any gains AUFA makes. Workers who scab still receive the benefit of that agreement. But, by scabbing, they avoid sharing the costs associated with achieving the agreement. In this way, scabs are free riders.

How would scabbing impact a strike?

Employers encourage scabbing to undermine the disruption caused by a strike. If a strike isn’t disruptive, employers can hold out long enough that workers will accept rollbacks in wages and working conditions.

In short, scabbing is assisting the employer to worsen your wages and working conditions. Some scabbing occurs in almost any strike, but minimizing scabbing typically shortens a strike’s duration and improves the outcomes for workers.

Scabbing by members won’t be an option if the employer locks us out, because all members will be barred from working. However, the employer could conceivably attempt a 24-hour lockout and, if AUFA strikes, invite scabbing after this.

Why do people scab?

There are many reasons. Some workers may think rollbacks are warranted and want to assist the employer to reduce their wages and working conditions. Others may seek to curry favour with the boss in the hope of future reward.

More often, however, workers choose to scab out of fear or concern.

One common fear is of reprisals from the employer. It is important to note that our right to strike is protected and the employer cannot lawfully retaliate against workers for participating in a legal strike. That is to say, you cannot be fired or otherwise punished for legally striking.

Concern for the impacts of a strike on students is another reason some workers may choose to scab. While understandable, this fails to recognize the longer-term impacts that deteriorating working conditions would have on students. Other faculty associations have received strong support from students during strikes.

Some workers may seek to avoid conflict so continue to work in the hope that things will blow over. However, those who choose to scab often find themselves isolated from their coworkers who participated in the strike.

Finally, some members may be worried about the loss of income during a strike. AUFA will provide strike pay and benefits coverage to lessen these impacts, and members are encouraged to take steps to prepare for a period of reduced income.

What do I do if the employer approaches me about scabbing?

The simplest answer is to politely say no. You have a right to strike once AUFA members have voted to do so and served notice. The employer is prohibited by law from retaliating against you for striking.

If you would like to discuss a request by the employer that you participate in scabbing during a strike or if you are feeling pressured to scab, please contact Richard Roach, AUFA’s executive director at roachr@aufa.ca for assistance.

One of my coworkers is talking about scabbing. What should I do?

An honest conversation with your co-worker is the best approach. Ask them why they are considering scabbing. Consider explaining how scabbing will negatively affect everyone’s wages and working conditions and potentially damage relationships.

If you’d like some advice about or assistance with such a conversation, please contact Rhiannon Rutherford, Chair of AUFA’s Membership Engagement Committee at rhiannon.rutherford@athabascau.ca.

How would AUFA handle scabbing by AUFA members?

If there is a strike and a member is discovered to be scabbing, JAC’s plan is to approach the members and have a discussion. Hopefully, they can be talked around to honoring the strike.

If not, the Executive has a number of options available to it, including suspension of membership and publicizing the names and photos of anyone who scabs. AUFA can also proceed civilly to recover the strike pay against members who scabbed but also took unearned strike pay.

After the strike is over, AUFA’s dues report will allow AUFA to identify anyone who continued to work during a strike. The Executive will determine how to proceed.

Most commonly, what happens after a strike is that scabs are socially ostracized by their co-workers. Members who endured a strike in order to protect and improve everyone’s terms and conditions of work rarely forget who scabbed.

After a strike, it is not uncommon for scabs to find themselves without friends in the workplace and even subject to subtle retaliation by understandably angry co-workers (e.g., by withholding information, favours, and effort). Often, scabs find the workplace so uncomfortable after a strike that they decide to move on.

Workers who scab in the hope of being rewarded by the boss often find the boss has a short memory and doesn’t keep its promises. Poor treatment of scabs by the boss is not surprising. Employers typically force a strike to grind wages and working conditions. Scabs are simply a tool to achieve that end. Once their usefulness comes to an end, scabs often find themselves discarded by the boss.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

AUFA Job Action Committee

Your turn

The Job Action Committee is interested in your views of AU’s strike preparations. As always, this form does not record your identity (i.e., is entirely anonymous).

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: 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

Bad faith and de-designation in IT reorganization

A major reorganization of the university IT department, called the IT Optimization, has recently been revealed in full. This reorganization is a consolidation of most IT functions in AU into the core IT department, affecting around 60 AUFA members.

HR began meeting with AUFA to discuss the reorganization late last year, clearly requesting that AUFA work with, rather than against, HR in this process. AUFA representatives consistently attended meetings in good faith and expected the same from HR. Although initial meetings were positive, the information became increasingly vague and inconsistent as time passed.

It finally took a concerted effort of AUFA members demanding information from HR before the planned futures for all AUFA members were revealed. With these details in hand, it is clear that the IT Optimization is being used as a way to carve some members of IT out of the bargaining unit.

Exclusions and designation

The first few drafts of the designation policy included the explicit exclusion of managers, and potential exclusion of IT staff. This language was removed last August after a threatened transfer credit boycott. The IT optimization was originally slated for release in September 2020, but was delayed until 2021, after the policy rewrite. HR have repeatedly stated that the optimization and designation policy had nothing to do with one another.

In the optimization lead-up, HR consistently led AUFA to believe managers would remain in the union, and that AUFA jobs would remain AUFA jobs. Unexpectedly, multiple manager jobs were posted as excluded positions last week. This is in addition to a new unit of security professionals who will all be excluded. Professional managers and IT security positions have been in AUFA for as long as AU has had those roles. Several AUFA managers have had their original positions abolished and must now choose between a demotion to a lesser role, or applying on an excluded position, which both looks suspiciously like their old AUFA job and entails a significant loss of benefits.

HR are now asserting that the application of the Designation as Academic Policy is the reason these positions are excluded. As the policy would exclude all professionals and academic coordinators, it shows that the policy is being selectively applied to new positions by AU. In effect, management is determining who gets union rights.

Bad faith, worse communications

Plans for the IT Optimization changed a few times without AUFA or affected staff being clearly informed, such as the decision to no longer include technical course production jobs in the reorganization. The complete lack of clear communication to affected staff became so bad that AUFA was forced to do employer communications for them, meeting with HR to receive incoherent information, interpret it, and then send it to the affected staff.

Vitally, in a November 24th meeting and in several meetings thereafter, HR asked AUFA how AU should resolve contests for new managerial positions. AUFA met with IT staff and then recommended a hiring committee with seniority as a tie breaker. HR did not respond to our recommendation, and instead just excluded the manager positions.

AUFA made multiple recommendations about working with, rather than without, affected staff to create the new jobs. Instead, AU surprised AUFA by deciding that it would use redundancy language for the optimization. This, in effect, means that all affected IT members will lose their jobs and be ‘redeployed’ into a new position determined by IT leaders. This allowed IT to draft the positions without any input from affected staff, a requirement under our reclassification language normally used for changing professional jobs.

Connection with bargaining

The recent opening proposal from AU includes attacks on most professional rights, including professional freedom, right to appeal, research and study leave, and the right to request position evaluations. The proposed elimination of position evaluation language would ensure that IT staff have no say in their job descriptions. This is so even though assigned duties often differ from job descriptions, and that professional jobs tend to become more senior over time.

HR did not use position evaluation in the reorganization for this reason, as using this language would require consulting IT staff about what they wanted in their careers. If AU is successful in forcing their desired changes to position evaluation language, this would allow AU even more discretion to unilaterally change members’ jobs, and would leave members little recourse to have their positions updated to reflect increasingly senior and complex work expectations.

Finally, excluding union jobs during bargaining is probably illegal. Managers are not only traditionally in AUFA but are explicitly permitted in academic unions under the labour code. Using layoff language to force union members to choose between excluded jobs or demotion—with extremely tight timelines—is an action that is in bad faith.

Analysis and Response

The secrecy, bad faith, and sudden arbitrary exclusions are union busting. It appears AU has adopted a “death by a thousand cuts” strategy with designation changes. The full implementation of these exclusions will weaken AUFA as a union during a bargaining year and is a probable violation of labour law and our collective agreement.

Although labour relations is an adversarial relationship, there is an expectation all parties work in good faith with genuine attempt to resolve issues. This latest attack on AUFA rights is the most egregious in a long established pattern of union-busting at Athabasca University.

AUFA will pursue all available means to stop this attack on our union. AUFA will be updating our existing Unfair Labour Practice complaint (related to the decanal de-designations), potentially filing a second, and investigate filing multiple grievances. As well, the Membership Engagement Committee will be working with the affected members and AUFA’s allies on the best response to attach personal and reputational costs these actions.

A year later, AUFA is winning the designation battle

One year ago, AU proposed carving two-thirds of AUFA members out of the union. Fighting this union-busting to an apparent stand-still has consumed an enormous amount of AUFA members’ time and emotional energy. Although a dangerous policy remains on the books, AU have communicated no plans to remove some members previously at issue in designation, and Neil Fassina is leaving. Before everyone departs for the winter break, I thought reflecting on how we’ve (so far) won this fight might be appropriate. 

AU’s efforts to de-designate two-third of AUFA members came on the heels of a very contentious round of collective bargaining. AUFA members thwarted efforts to roll back wages, impose company doctors, and grind our working conditions. 

This was our first round of bargaining under strike-lockout and, from the inside, I would say we came pretty close to a work stoppage. In that context (and absent any believable explanation from AU), the likely purpose of the new designation policy was to degrade AUFA’s strike threat going into bargaining in July of 2020. 

AU’s designation game plan appeared to be two-fold: (1) conduct hollow consultations, and (2) then implement the policy. This proposal would have immediately carved out deans, associate deans, managers and many IT staff. Subsequently, AU could then carve out other professionals and academic coordinators at its leisure or, possibly, trade a stay on de-designation for concessions at the table. 

Fortunately, AUFA’s members saw through this strategy and began to resist. Some highlights include: 

• Well subscribed button, sign, profile picture, and email campaigns. 

• Four raucous “Conversation with the President” sessions where members took President Fassina to task for six hours. This was so effective that Fassina discontinued two-way staff meetings. 

• Group letters, petitions, testimonials, picketing, and a march on the boss. 

• A campaign of public embarrassment by making visible AU’s terrible behaviour. 

• Developing a visiting student boycott threat with significant financial consequences should AU de-designate employees. 

AUFA’s November survey showed trust in Fassina at an all-time low and approval of AUFA as extremely high. Members also supported continued resistance, including publicly embarrassing AU and taking direct job action. This support has been incredibly heartening. 

For its part, AU’s Board has passed a watered down version of its original policy (with no automatic de-designations). Since then, AU has shown no signs of taking action to de-designate any staff. Subsequently, Fassina was reduced to claiming there was no “master plan” to de-designate (when clearly there was) and pretending to not understand why AUFA would be threatening a boycott (when it was previously explained at length to him). Fassina has also (unexpectedly) announced his departure. In a recent meeting with AUFA, Human Resources clearly stated that there are no plans to change the designation status of any IT staff. These are all signs that AU is losing this fight.  

There are a number of lessons to be found in the events of the last year: 

1. Wins are often incremental, partial, and hard to see. We got AU to remove automatic de-designation from the policy. And AU seems to have pressed paused on dedesignation (at least for the moment). It can be hard to get excited about these sorts of nebulous victories. But the employer quietly giving up on a course of action is an important (and the most common kind of) victory that unions win. 

2. Power, not good arguments, matters when dealing with the employer. AUFA made many good arguments to AU during consultations. AU heeded none of them. What caused AU to change its behaviour was AUFA attaching costs (e.g., social pressure, reputational and financial harm) to AU’s behaviour. Attaching costs is an exercise of power and the employer responded to it. 

3. Worker power comes from solidarity. AUFA’s ability to attach costs comes mainly from its members. Members ask hard questions, write letters, and picket. Members sanction and carry out boycotts and job actions. These exercises in power require members to recognize that they have a shared interest and that interest is separate from the employer’s interest. 

4. Power persists. While everyone hopes that AU quietly drops its plans to de-designate, the power that we have built resisting this attack will serve us well as collective bargaining begins in earnest next year. The government is signalling it wants wage rollbacks and then wage freezes. AUFA members are signalling they want wage increases to account for years of foregone cost-of-living adjustments. Making gains in this climate will require that we act together such that giving us a raise is the best option available to AU’s Board. 

Our success in staving off AU’s union busting is the result of the hard work of many people. Most importantly, we need to thank each other. AUFA members—many with no prior union involvement—stepped way out of their comfort zone to push back against this attack on their colleagues’ rights to be in a union of their choosing. We also owe our thanks to AUFA members who volunteered their time with AUFA to call members, solicit signatures, and organize events and campaigns. 

We need to thank our union allies. CUPE Local 3911 and AUPE Local 69 were steadfast in their support of AUFA who we now meet with regularly to continue to build solidarity across AU labour unions. This denied AU the opportunity to play workers off against other workers and in fact strengthened our ties. We need to remember the support AUPE and CUPE gave us when AU decides to go after them. Other faculty associations from across Alberta and the country have also stepped up to join our visiting student boycott. Without their help, we would not be in the position we’re presently in. 

As we get ready for a well-earned winter break, please accept my personal thanks for your hard work this year. The irony that AU’s union-busting created a much stronger union should not be lost on anyone, and especially AU’s Board. 

Dave Powell, President