Strong support for job action if necessary

Last week, AUFA’s executive and members of the Membership Engagement Committee (MEC), bargaining team, and Job Action Committee (JAC) met to discuss next steps in collective bargaining. This meeting was held to develop a common understanding of where bargaining is at, what the next steps are, and to brainstorm ideas for escalating pressure on AU to actually negotiate.

Bargaining Background and Status

AUFA and AU exchanged proposals in March and have held additional bargaining sessions in April, May, and early June. A half day of bargaining is scheduled for June 23.

There has been little progress at the table. AU has been resistant to AUFA’s proposals. AU has also refused to table the majority of its own proposals, including its monetary asks. It is not possible to reach an agreement with AU when AU refuses to tell us what it wants.

Member Support for AUFA Proposals

Online polling has demonstrated strong membership support for AUFA proposals, including extending academic and professional freedom and conducting a pay equity analysis. Members have also strongly rejected AU’s proposals to make it easier to layoff and discipline staff.

Unless there is significant movement at the bargaining table, AUFA members will need to begin taking job action to apply pressure to AU to negotiate a reasonable agreement. While we are a long way from going on strike, there are many things members that AUFA members can do to apply pressure.

For example, many members sent questions to Acting President Deborah Meyers ahead of her May Connect with the President sessions. Meyers declined to answer those questions. This suggests that AUFA members will need to take more forceful action to convince the university executive and the Board that there is no appetite among AUFA members for the concessions that AU is demanding.

If AU is unwilling to change course, AUFA members may ultimately need to strike in order to maintain their pay and benefits, AUFA has been preparing for a work stoppage since 2017.

Member Priorities at the Table

As part of this preparation, AUFA’s April MEC survey asked members about their bargaining priorities and their willingness to strike. Random sampling makes us reasonably confident that this data is valid and reliable (but see caveats below).

AUFA members identified resolving the ongoing designation issue, job security, and wages as their three most important priorities. Regarding wage increases, AUFA members noted:

1. AUFA members have accepted multiple years of salary freezes

2. The cost of living has risen appreciably during this time.

3. Workloads have increased significantly.

4. AU can afford cost-of-living increases.

Member Willingness to Strike

When asked about their willingness to strike over specific issues, there was strong support for striking to prevent rollbacks.

Overall, 69% of AUFA members said they would be likely or very likely to strike to prevent a wage rollback of 4%. While AU has not provided its monetary offer, a 3-4% rollback followed by another 3 or 4 years of wages freezes is a clear pattern across Alberta universities and colleges.

When asked if they would strike to prevent reductions in layoff language, 64% of AUFA members said they be likely or very likely to strike.

Finally, when asked if they would strike to protect professional members rights, 83% of AUFA members said they would likely or very likely to strike. This result demonstrates that AU’s wedge tactics (i.e., offering carrots to academics and applying the stick to professionals) has entirely failed.

A couple of caveats are in order about this approach to assessing member willingness to strike. The first is that asking members about willingness to strike on an issue-by-issue basis is a bit artificial. Actual strike behaviour is driven by an assessment of the totality of the alternative to a strike (i.e., the employer’s last, best offer). Consequently, these issue-by-issue questions may underestimate the overall willingness of members to strike.

For example, if we polled only two members (Bob and Jane) and found that Bob will only strike against wage rollbacks and Jane will only strike to protect professional rights, it will look like only 50% of members will strike over each issue. But, if the employer’s final offer contains wages rollbacks and cuts to professional rights, both Bob and Jane will end up supporting the strike (so 100% of the membership will walk).

Second, asking people about their willingness to strike is different than asking people to actually strike. When the rubber hits the road, people often have second thought because strikes are scary (especially first strikes). This means these numbers may over-estimate the willingness to actually strike.

Third, these polls are a snapshot of member feelings at a particular moment in time (late April). As the context changes (e.g., the employer acts unreasonably or racks up another operating surplus), the willingness of members to strike will change.

Despite these caveats, these numbers, especially so early in the bargaining process, suggest that AUFA could mount an effective strike if AU is unwilling to negotiate an acceptable offer. A smart employer would see these numbers as an opportunity to rethink their aggressive strategy and begin negotiating in earnest for a mutually acceptable contract.

Your Thoughts

AUFA would be interested in your thoughts about the next steps in bargaining.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Designation Update

A recurring issue AUFA has faced is AU’s efforts to carve out members from AUFA’s bargaining unit. This process is referred to as ‘de-designation’. De-designation was the most frequently mentioned issue in AUFA’s spring member engagement survey.

This blog summarizes the issue for new AUFA members and provides an update on where matters stand.

What is Designation?

Designation is the power given to the Board of Governors in the Post-Secondary Learning Act to determine which individuals or positions are considered to be academic staff members. These individuals and positions then comprise the membership of the faculty association bargaining unit. This arrangement is different than almost every other union, wherein the workers choose which union they wish to represent them.

Under AU’s 1983 designation policy, all AU employees whose jobs are categorized as academic (i.e., assistant, associate, and full professors as well as academic coordinators) or professional (e.g., library, facilities, IT, registral, course production, and administrative staff) were designated as academic staff members and, thus, members of AUFA.

The result is a bargaining unit that has a much broader membership than is common in bricks-and-mortar universities. This was, in part, a reflection of AU’s unique model: quality distance education is a collaborative effort, with many individuals contributing to the success of a course or program. It also reflected AU’s relatively small size and he need for a critical mass of workers to make a union viable.

2020 Policy Change

In late 2019, AU informed AUFA that AU would be reviewing its designation policy. The changes AU first proposed would have immediately removed approximately two-thirds of the AUFA members from the union. This included academic coordinators, deans, associate deans, managers, and all professional staff. It is unlikely AUFA would remain financially viable as an independent union with such a catastrophic loss in members.

AU never provided a credible explanation for this radical change. The most likely explanation is that AU is seeking to destroy AUFA’s strike threat by removing as many members as possible. In the long-term, this would result in worse salaries and benefits for the remaining AUFA members, as well as for the de-designated staff (see below for a more detailed explanation of the impact of being de-designated).

Throughout 2020, AUFA members applied pressure to AU to walk back these changes. This pressure included petitions, letters, emails, a public campaign, picketing, and, ultimately, organizing a transfer credit boycott threat. A revised policy was approved in September 2020. Shortly thereafter, AU president Neil Fassina departed for a lower-paying job at a community college for reasons that he declined to explain.

AU’s new designation policy created a process by which AU can de-designate AUFA members. A strict interpretation of the new policy would make it possible for AU to reduce AUFA’s membership to research-based professors only (approximately one third of its present size).

Under the procedure associated with the new policy, AU must identify any positions it seeks to de-designate and consult with the affected unions and staff members. Any resulting de-designations can be challenged at the Alberta Labour Relations Board.

2021 De-designations

In the spring of 2021, AU notified AUFA of its intention to de-designate the five deans, thereby removing them from the AUFA bargaining unit. AU’s business case for this de-designation demonstrated the VPA had little grasp of what the deans do on a day-to-day basis. This de-designation came after years of failed attempts by AU to exclude the deans through a concessions-only bargaining approach.

The IT optimization process also saw AU dis-establish a number of AUFA manager positions and re-create them as excluded manager positions. AU has also been hiring to new positions that, historically, would have been in AUFA, but are now excluded. This “nickel-and-dime” strategy to de-designation is likely designed to be grind AUFA numbers down over time while forcing AUFA to fight as series of small actions.

AUFA has responded to the de-designation of the Deans and IT managers by filing an Unfair Labour Practice complaint with the Labour Board and submitting a grievance to AU on the poorly done IT Re-Organization and removal of some IT managers from the Association. These complaints are presently in process and we will update members as they are heard.

AUFA has also proposed limits on AU’s designation authority in the collective agreement.

What happens if I am de-designated?

If you are de-designated, you would continue to have an employment relationship with AU and similar job duties. You may be represented by a different union or you may become a non-unionized employee.

Your substantive rights as set out in the AUFA collective agreement (e.g., wages, leaves, and benefits) are unlikely to change in the short term. AU may subsequently seek or impose changes to your wages and benefits. It will be easier for AU to impose changes if you are a non-unionized employee.

Your continued access to procedural rights (e.g., the discipline process, probationary and reclassification, and workload appeals) may continue, may continue with changes, or may be discontinued, depending upon the specific right and whether you become a member of another union or become non-unionized. AU may also subsequently seek or impose changes to your procedural rights. It will be easier for AU to impose changes if you are a non-unionized employee.

Professionals

AUFA believes the de-designation of professional staff would result, at least initially, in professionals becoming non-unionized (i.e., excluded) employees. If professionals become non-unionized as a result of being de-designated, they would then have individual contracts of employment operating under the common law.

It is likely that these contracts would initially contain the existing provisions around wages, benefits, and other entitlements. They would also contain some of the procedural rights set out in the collective agreement. It would be up to individual employees to enforce those rights (i.e., pay for their own lawyers) if the employer violated the new individual contracts or sought to impose discipline or terminate them.

Under the common law, the employer could propose changes to the contracts of employment. For example, AU could seek to eliminate sabbaticals or reduce layoff notice in order to reduce costs. AU would need to offer to some consideration (i.e., something of value) in exchange for the contractual change. But what AU offered would not necessarily have to be of much value. For example, AU could offer a few extra days of vacation this year in exchange for eliminating sabbaticals (which are worth about 15% of wages).

If the individual workers did not accept the proposed change, the employer may be able to terminate the workers’ employment by providing whatever termination provisions existed in the contract. This dynamic reflects that the job protection and bargaining power of individual employees is weaker than those of unionized employees. Indeed, this loss of power may be one of the attractions to AU of de-designating professionals.

While AUFA believes the most likely scenario following de-designation is that professionals would become non-unionized employees, it is possible that professionals might be rolled into the AUPE bargaining unit by the Labour Board during the litigation around de-designation. In this scenario, some (possibly all) IT employees would not be eligible to join a union due to specific IT exclusions in the Public Service Employee Relations Act.

If this was the case, AUPE would “take over” the AUFA collective agreement for professionals who were transferred to AUPE. Subsequently, AUPE would need to either negotiate a new agreement for professionals or incorporate professionals into the existing AUPE agreement. It is also possible that professionals might subsequently be organized by another union (again, note the possible IT exclusions). In this case, the other union would then need to negotiate a new collective agreement from scratch.

Academic Coordinators

We believe the de-designation of academic coordinators would result in academic coordinators becoming a part of the CUPE bargaining unit (which presently represents “all non-designated academics”).

In this case, CUPE would “take over” the administration of the AUFA collective agreement for academic coordinators. Subsequently, CUPE would need to either negotiate a new agreement for academic coordinators or incorporate academic coordinators into the existing CUPE agreement.

AUFA expects that AU would seek to reduce the rights and entitlements of academic coordinators during any subsequent collective bargaining. It is unclear if CUPE would be able to maintain academic coordinators’ current rights and entitlements in the face of aggressive AU bargaining. A review of wage settlements at AU shows that CUPE wage settlements have significantly lagged behind AUFA settlements.

Deans and Managers

AU previously indicated that it desired to de-designate deans, associate deans, and managers (although AU walked back the associate dean exclusion). AUFA believes that, if AU de-designated these positions, they would become non-unionized (i.e., excluded) employees. Any excluded employees would have individual contracts of employment operating under the common law.

Similarly to the professionals (above), these contracts would initially contain existing provisions around wages, benefits and other entitlements. They would also contain some of the procedural rights set out in the collective agreement. It would be up to individual employees to enforce those rights, and the employer could then propose changes to the contracts of employment or seek to terminate them.

It is not perfectly clear if terminated deans and associate deans would have a right of return to their faculty positions under the AUFA agreement. AUFA suspects a return would be possible under the current agreements in place for deans and associate deans. AU has repeatedly refused AUFA’s request to remove a portion of decanal contracts that could allow them to terminate a dean as both dean and professor.

Pensions

AUFA members are currently enrolled in the Universities Academic Pension Plan (UAPP). We expect that all contributions made by AUFA members prior to de-designation would be protected and de-designated AUFA members would be eligible to receive a pension based upon these contributions.

It is unclear whether AUFA members would continue to be eligible to be members of UAPP if they are de-designated. UAPP’s pension agreement (page 102) indicates that AU employees who are eligible to be members of UAPP comprise:

Academic staff (as that term is defined in the Universities Act), executive, management, and supervisory employees of Athabasca University (as those terms are defined by Athabasca University and filed with the Plan Sponsors) … (p. 102)

Academic coordinators and professionals who are de-designated would not likely be eligible to continue in the pension plan. By contrast, deans and professionals with the title of director or manager may still be eligible for UAPP membership based on the management and supervisory categories above. The newly excluded managers in the IT department have remained on UAPP for this reason.

It may be that AU would make provisions for members ineligible to continue with UAPP due to the proposed policy to join a different pension plan (AU refused to address this during the 2020 consultations.) An important question in any transfer is whether the terms of the pension are comparable (e.g., some pension plans have an 85 factor (age plus years of service) to get a full pension, while UAPP has an 80 factor).

It may also be possible for AU to alter its definitions on file with UAPP to maintain pension membership eligibility for de-designated staff. This is obviously an issue AUFA will be raising when AU begins consulting with AUFA about specific de-designations.

Conclusion

AU’s efforts to de-designate a significant portion of AUFA’s membership has significant consequences. Those AUFA’s members who are de-designated will likely see their terms and conditions of employment worsen. Those AUFA members who remain in the smaller AUFA unit will have less bargaining power and a less effective strike threat so will be more vulnerable to rollbacks.

There is no compelling rationale for any de-designations at AU. The current arrangement has worked well since 1983. The most likely rationale for this is that AU is trying to use its de-designation power to advantage itself at the bargaining table and reduce it labour costs.

AUFA is committed to fighting each de-designation.

Your Turn

The AUFA executive is interested in your feedback on de-designation.

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

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

AUFA membership pass motions on Israel and Laurentian University at AGM

The 2021 AUFA General Meeting was held this past Tuesday with 185 members attending, approximately 44% of the current AUFA membership. This incredible turnout is thanks to engaged, active, and interested members who are taking charge of their own futures at Athabasca University. President of CAUT, Brenda-Austin Smith spoke at the AGM extensively on how executive incompetence mixed with austerity led to insolvency at Laurentian University, and the censure at University of Toronto over academic freedom.

AUFA members also endorsed a new equity statement and an Indigenous Audit of the association, both of which will be discussed on the AUFA website soon.

Motion on Israel, Palestine, and the University of Toronto

The CAUT censure of University of Toronto has brought to bear substantive academic freedom issues relating to scholarship on Israeli settlement and apartheid. Academic research that is critical of the Israeli occupation faces undue censorship and restrictions compared to research on any other number of controversial topics, and it is vital that faculty associations not only stand forth to defend academic freedom, but that they speak to the issue at hand with a collective voice.

AUFA condemns in the strongest terms all attempts to censor and contain legitimately scholarly research on the teaching of human rights and international law violations against Palestinians and Palestine. We publicly support, and voted for CAUT censure of the University of Toronto over this issue.

The motion, which was passed with a 74% majority, reads as follows:

Be it resolved, because Palestinians have the right to exist, we condemn the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and continuing apartheid settler colonial practices of the State of Israel.

Because of the ongoing violations of human rights, forced evictions, deliberate destruction of buildings, and putting civilian life in peril perpetrated by the State of Israel towards Palestinians, we condemn the apartheid State of Israel and stand in support for an immediate ceasefire and end of the violence. 

We call on the Athabasca University Faculty Association and the university to condemn in the strongest terms the attempts to censor and contain legitimate scholarly research on and teaching of these human rights and international law violations against Palestinians and Palestine, and we call on AUFA to publicly support CAUT's censure of the University of Toronto.

Laurentian University

A second motion was passed with a 91% majority to demand the immediate resignation of the entire Laurentian University executive. AUFA once faced vague threats of insolvency in our past and the horrors visited about Laurentian University staff who have been denied access to their union and collective agreement rights must never be repeated. This is due to the incredible incompetence of the Laurentian University executive, and the mindless austerity of the Ontario Minister of Advanced Education Ross Romano.

The AUFA President will send a public letter demanding the resignation of the Laurentian University executive in the near future per the motion.

Motion text reads as follows:

That AUFA demand that all members of the Laurentian Executive resign effective immediately over the issues of financial mismanagement and invocation of Companies Creditors Arrangement Act Insolvency. 

AUFA Executive

The new AUFA Executive will see David Powell and Gail Leicht return as President and Treasurer for second terms. Stepping up as Vice-President will be Serena Henderson, and Dawn Mercer Riseli will be the new Secretary. The elected roster of constituency representatives is Lisa Boone, Travis Burwash, Bangaly Kaba, Joanna Nemeth, Darka Pavlovic, Rhiannon Rutherford, Ingo Schmidt, Myra Tait, and Jason Foster.

Marti Cleveland-Innes will serve as the new Board of Governors Representative, replacing Derek Briton who has fulfilled his term limit as BoG rep. Thank you for your service and excellent reports, Derek. In addition a large slate of elected committees has been filled. All new terms begin on July 1st.

Thank you to the AUFA members for your support, the incredible turnout, and ongoing engagement and participation. This is how we win.

David Powell

President, Athabasca University Faculty Association

Bargaining Analysis 4: AUFA’s pay equity proposal

This blog post provides examines some of AUFA’s proposed changes to our equity language. AUFA has made a large number of equity-related proposals, including:

• Improvements to professional freedom.

• Meaningful workload appeal processes.

• A commitment to increasing the proportion of Staff Members from traditionally under-represented groups.

• Recognition of the additional work commonly borne by equity-seeking groups.

• A contractual obligation to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) calls to action.

• Allowing Indigenous academics to select from a broader range of externals during promotion.

• Completion of a pay equity survey every three years.

This post focuses on AUFA’s pay equity proposal.

Current and Proposed Language

Article 10 of the collective agreement prohibits discrimination against AUFA members with respect to salaries and benefits on a list of enumerated personal characteristics. These characteristics include (but are not limited to) gender and race. Article 26 requires AUFA and AU to address equity issues, but does not specifically mention salaries or benefits.

AUFA’s opening proposal seeks to amend Article 26 by adding in this language:

26.2.2 The Employment Equity Committee shall:

d) Complete an analysis of pay equity with specific attention to age, race/ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation among Staff Members within six (6) months of this agreement.

e) Conduct additional analyses of pay equity among Staff Members every third year after completion of the first pay equity analysis.

Inequities in pay revealed by this analysis would then trigger AU’s obligations under Article 10 to take action to remedy them.

This proposal reflects preliminary data analysis that suggests there is significant and pervasive gender inequity in starting salaries for AUFA members. Differences in starting salaries persist throughout one’s career and affect pension income.

Gender Analysis of Starting Salaries

As part of AUFA’s preparation for bargaining, a preliminary analysis of starting salaries was conducted by AUFA President Dave Powell using salary data AU provides to AUFA. There are two important caveats relating to this analysis.

First, the university’s collection of gender data is flawed. The university collects data according to a male/female sex binary. The male/female sex binary denies, delegitimizes and invisibilizes the existence and rights of people who do not conform to its terms. Some people’s gender does not match the sex and gender they were assigned at birth (transgender), some people express genders that are a combination of masculine and feminine (Two-Spirit, gender-non-binary, gender-non-conforming, or genderqueer), and some people do not identify with or express a gender (agender). Proper analysis of pay equity needs to include genders beyond the sex binary.

Second, analysis of pay equity must include gender, as well as age, race/ethnicity, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation as people are systemically paid less according to all these categories. Any pay equity analysis that only considers one category, for example gender, will not account for how systemic colonialism, racism, homophobia and transphobia differently determines employees’ salaries. When gender is the only category that is assessed, white women tend to be the primary or sole beneficiaries of pay equity adjustments. As such, AUFA advocates for a university-wide pay equity analysis that includes all these categories. For this analysis, AUFA used the available data, which is limited to the male/female sex binary category.

AUFA members who were hired between 2017 and 2020 (inclusive) were identified. A small number of known salary outlier cases (e.g., former executives who moved into the AUFA) were removed for the purposes of the analysis. Anonymized data (i.e., starting base salary, start year, faculty, and gender) for the remaining new hires (n=102) was then extracted for analysis. Subsequent data analysis and presentation has been carefully screened to avoid inadvertently revealing anyone’s identity.

A high-level overview of salaries by rank and gender suggested women are often hired at lower salaries than men. In some ranks, there were a very small number of new hires. This makes maintaining anonymity difficult and also raises questions about how representative the data is in those ranks. Consequently, the analysis that follows focuses on the Assistant Professor and Professional C ranks.

The Assistant Professor and Professional C ranks had the most hires (27 and 24 respectively). There were also a significant number of Professional B hires (19). This category was excluded from the analysis because these “new hires” are often long-term AU employees who have been promoted out of AUPE and, thus, bring their salary level with them. In this way, they are not “new to AU” in the same way that are most Assistant Professors and C-level Professionals.

The salary range for Assistant Professors is presently $71,506 to $100,202. Market supplements were excluded from the analysis; there does not appear to be any gendered pattern to the value of market supplements. The salary range for Professional C levels is presently $79,569 to 105,328. Long-service increments extend the Professional C grid to $114,287, but these are not available to new hires.

The table below presents average wages by gender and rank. There are a couple of notable patterns. First, AU hired more women than men in these ranks from 2017-2020. Second, the average starting base salary of women was several thousand dollars lower than that awarded to men.

A couple of methodological notes and caveats are useful here.

• The salaries are averages (means). The median salary is very close to the means in all cases.

• Faculty- and department-level data is not being presented due to concerns about confidentiality. That said, for Assistant Professors, the broad patterns exist across all faculties except FHSS, where women’s and men’s starting salaries are essentially the same.

• There are reasons other than gender for the assignment of starting salaries (e.g., experience, negotiating) that cannot be controlled for given the data AUFA has available to it.

Recognizing these caveats, the pattern in this data suggests AU may be discriminating against women in terms of starting salaries. If AU is committed to the principles of employment equity, this requires further investigation, which accounts for genders beyond the sex binary, and which simultaneously accounts for age, race/ethnicity, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation. Consequently, AUFA has proposed in bargaining periodic joint analyses of pay equity on the basis of gender as well as other identity factors such as age, race/ethnicity, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation.

The pattern revealed in this analysis also suggests that AU may be in breach of its obligations under Article 10 of the collective agreement. This issue will be referred to the equity and grievance committees for further discussion.

Your Views

AUFA’s bargaining team is interested in hearing the views of the AUFA membership about this proposal. To that end, we have created a short survey.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Bargaining Analysis 2: AU’s discipline proposals

This post is the second in a series of blog posts that provides more detailed analyses of both AUFA’s and AU’s proposals. This blog examines AU’s proposed changes to our discipline language. AUFA has not proposed any changes to these provisions.

Current Language

Article 7 of the current collective agreement allows AU to investigate alleged misbehaviour by AUFA members. You are entitled to AUFA representation throughout the process.

Investigations are supposed to be completed by your supervisor but, in practice, HR generally does the investigation. At the end an investigation, AU may apply discipline. Discipline can range from a letter of reprimand up to termination of employment.

Discipline is subject to an appeal process. If the discipline imposed by AU results in an interruption of AUFA member’s income (i.e., suspension without pay or termination), the discipline is held in abeyance pending the outcome of any appeal.

Appeals are decided by a three-person appeal panel comprising one person appointed by AUFA, one person appointed by AU, and a third person jointly appointed by the AUFA and AU appointees who chairs the panel. Both AU and AUFA have legal counsel present their case to the panel, which renders a binding decision.

Appeal hearings can take several months to schedule (e.g., the most recent case is 9 months from discipline to hearing) and additional time to receive a decision. These scheduling delays are often due to the unavailability of AU’s legal counsel. During this period, AU has the option of suspending a member from their duties with pay or allowing the member to continue working.

The appeal process is expensive for AU because AU must pay for the costs of the appeal panel plus the cost of lawyer to present AU’s side. AUFA covers the cost of a lawyer to represent an AUFA member. AU bearing approximately 80% of the cost of a discipline appeal creates an incentive for AU to discipline members only when discipline is clearly warranted.

AU’s Proposed Language

AU has proposed two significant changes to Article 7.

AU is proposing that all discipline would take effect immediately. This is different from current practice, wherein discipline that interrupts an AUFA member’s income is held in abeyance pending the outcome of any appeal. This change would mean the imposition of discipline would create immediate financial consequences for AUFA members.

AU is also proposing that the current appeal system would be replaced by the existing grievance process (i.e., AUFA would grieve rather than appeal). The cost of a grievance is split 50/50 between AUFA and AU, so this proposal would save AU a significant amount of money. Grievances have multiple steps before reaching the arbitration stage.

At present, it can take 18 months to schedule a grievance hearing (again typically because of the unavailability of AU’s legal counsel). This additional delay would compound any interruption of income created by AU’s first proposed change

Implications

AU’s proposed changes to Article 7 would negatively affect AUFA members in three ways:

• An AUFA member who is suspended without pay or terminated would immediately be without income.

• The delays inherent with the grievance process would mean this income loss could persist for years.

• All AUFA members would bear higher costs to defend AUFA members because of AU’s proposed reallocation of costs.

Together, these changes would make it easier and cheaper for AU to discipline AUFA members.

AU’s proposals to make it easier and cheaper to discipline AUFA members must be considered in light of AU’s past behaviour when enacting discipline. Here are some examples since 2017:

• AU ignored the discipline provisions by issuing a disciplinary letter but not to telling the member what they had done wrong. AUFA grieved this discipline as defective. AU refused to remedy this obvious defect and, after a long delay that was emotionally punishing to the member, an arbitration hearing was held. The employer arrived at the arbitration and admitted that the letter was defective. Not surprisingly, the arbitrator tossed the letter out.

• AU imposed dismissal and fired the member, somehow forgetting that dismissals are held pending the result of any appeal. AUFA got the member reinstated during the appeal process.

• AU placed a letter of a censure on a member’s file (mine, as it happens) without going through the disciplinary process. This discipline was imposed for violating a rule that did not exist. Letters of censure are specifically named as a form of discipline in Article 7. After rather ridiculously arguing that the letter was a “non-disciplinary disciplinary letter”, AU decided to withdraw the letter.

• AU went through a disciplinary hearing and told the employee they had done something bad. But, instead of putting a letter of discipline on the employee’s file, they placed a letter of expectation (i.e., required changes in performance) on the file. The letter of expectation looked a lot like a letter of discipline (including recording a number of contestable allegations) and can be used by the employer to build a termination case. But, AU argues, because it is not a disciplinary letter, the AUFA member has no way to appeal or otherwise fight the allegations in the letter of expectation.

• AU accused an AUFA member of making a threat and eventually issued a written warning. On appeal, the appeal panel ruled that the discipline was not warranted and HR had mis-understood the standard required to enact discipline.

This pattern of behaviour suggests it is not in AUFA members’ interests to make it easier for AU to enact discipline.

Your Views

AUFA’s bargaining team is interested in hearing the views of the AUFA membership about this proposal. To that end, we have created a short survey.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Bargaining Analysis 1: AU’s layoff proposals

Two weeks ago, AUFA and AU exchanged opening proposals. This post is the first in a series of blog posts that provides more detailed analyses of both AUFA’s and AU’s proposals. This blog examines AU’s proposed changes to our layoff language. AUFA has not proposed any changes to these provisions.

Current Language

Article 12 of the current collective agreement allows AU to discontinue (i.e., terminate) the employment of AUFA members. This can happen when there is financial stringency or when AU is engaged in a reorganization. Such terminations are colloquially called “layoffs”. These provisions apply equally to academic and professional AUFA members.

If an AUFA member with a permanent job is laid off, they are entitled to:

• 12 months of notice of the layoff,

• a severance payment of 1 month of pay per year of service up to six months of pay.

The upshot is that an AUFA member with 6 years of service would be entitled to the equivalent of 18 months of pay (i.e., 12 months of notice plus 6 months of severance).

(Slightly complicating things is the fact that, in the last round of bargaining, AUFA agreed to changes that allow the employer to pay out the 12-month notice period, instead of having the member serve out the notice period. Subsequently, AU unilaterally asserted that, when paying out the period of notice, AU only has to pay out the 12 months of wages and not the value of the benefits during this period. Benefits have a value of about 20% of overall compensation. This issue is subject to a grievance that will be heard in May.)

AUFA members who are laid off also have recall rights for four years. Essentially, laid off AUFA members must receive first consideration for all positions for which they are qualified. And, if you return to AU after a layoff, you are entitled to the same contractual status, leaves and accumulated benefits that you had when you left.

If a layoff occurs as a result of a re-organization, AU also has modest obligations to consider retraining, redeployment (i.e., adding new duties to a job, transfer to a different job, or creating a new job), and early retirement. If an AUFA member is redeployed to a job with a lower salary, the member’s original salary remains intact.

Finally, Article 12 does not allow the employer from temporarily laying off AUFA members for short periods of time.

AU’s Proposal Language

AU has proposed significant changes to our layoff language. You can read the proposal here.

These include:

• creating separate layoff provisions for academic and professional members,

• reducing the overall compensation provided when an AUFA member is laid off, and

• introducing new provisions to allow the temporary layoff of professional members.

The existing Article 12 is re-titled such that it applies only to academic members (i.e., professors and academic coordinators). The revised article proposes:

• Reducing the notice period to 6 months (from 12).

• If AU elects to pay out the notice period, the payout would not include the value of benefits.

• Recall rights would be shortened to 2 years (from 4).

• If you are recalled, you do not maintain your contractual status (e.g., current rank and tenure).

• If you are rehired, you may need to repay some of your payout. For example, if your total payout is 12 months but you were rehired after 6, you would need to repay the other 6 months (even though your rehiring may have resulted in you now holding a lower-paying job).

• If AU offers retraining, it is no longer required to pay your salary during this period of retraining.

A new article is introduced regarding permanent layoffs of professional members. This proposal allows the Board complete discretion in whom it wishes to terminate. If a professional member is identified for termination:

• The professional member receives 90 days of notice or is paid 90 days of wages in lieu of notice (down from 12 months).

• Professional members with more than 3 years of service may also receive a separation payment as shown in Table 1 (also a reduction).

Table 1. AU’s Proposed Separation Payment in Months

• This change entails a significant loss in termination pay as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Current and Proposed Severance in Months

• Professional members would no longer have recall rights.

• If AU offers you an alternative position with the same salary and benefits (in lieu of layoff) and you refuse, you do not receive the separation payment.

Finally, AU is proposing new language that would give AU the power to temporarily layoff professional members. Under this proposal:

• AU could give professionals 14 days of notice of a temporary layoff due to lack of work (except in circumstances beyond the control of the Board, when no notice would be required).

• The temporary layoff could last as long as 90 days.

• During the period of temporary layoff, it appears professionals would receive no salary and would not have access to any benefits (although this is not clear).

• Professionals would receive 1 week of notice if they are recalled.

• If a temporary layoff lasted longer than 90 days, professionals would be considered permanently laid off and would be entitled to the professional separation payment discussed above (but, it appears, not the notice period).

At present, no rationale has been advanced by AU to justify it proposal.

Implications

AU’s proposal has several implications:

1. AUFA members would receive less compensation if they are permanently laid off. This is particularly the case for professional staff.

2. Academics would have lesser recall rights. Professionals would no longer have recall rights

3. It would be cheaper (and thus easier) for AU to permanently layoff AUFA members.

4. The cost of permanently laying off professional staff would likely be lower than the cost to AU of fighting a discipline appeal. This opens the door to AU improperly using layoff language to address discipline problems.

5. The introduction of temporary layoff for professionals makes their employment much more precarious and requires us to trust that AU would use this power in a reasonable manner.

Your Views

AUFA’s bargaining team is interested in hearing the views of the AUFA membership about this proposal. To that end, we have created a short survey.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee