AUFA and jobs in Athabasca

Correction: The lobbyist mentioned under ‘The Campaign’ is jointly funded by both the Town of Athabasca and Athabasca County.

Recently, the Alberta government announced a major initiative to recentre Athabasca University in the Athabasca area. This follows a decade of steady job losses in the region and an extensive lobbying campaign run by town locals, originally started by AUFA and AUPE. AU President Peter Scott has responded to this initiative defiantly, making it clear that the university intends to continue a “near-virtual” plan that would see all staff work from home.

Background

In 2015, AUFA identified the gradual loss of professional and excluded positions in the Athabasca area. Although there had been a mass exodus of academics from Athabasca over ten years previous, this was offset by rapid hiring to other positions at AU. The job losses were triggered by 2013 layoffs which primarily targeted Athabascans, and a subsequent recovery that was entirely in Edmonton. While AU’s overall employee numbers grew, Athabasca’s shrank. Since 2012, AUFA’s professional complement in Athabasca has shrunk by 39%.  

After Neil Fassina’s hiring as the first President to not live in Athabasca, AU’s senior leadership (directors, deputies, AVPs, executve) were hired out of town, or moved to join their colleagues. In 2016, 18/25 or 72% of senior leaders were in Athabasca. As of now, it is 5/35 or 14%, despite adding ten more management jobs. Part of the plan of the new executive was a virtual campus where positions would slowly move to work-from-home.

COVID-19 accelerated these plans as almost all AU staff began work from home. This allowed AU to simply cancel any plans to return to offices, and divest itself of its physical locations. As of now the Edmonton and Calgary offices have been permanently shuttered save for one floor with drop-in spaces in Edmonton. It should be noted that this is not without controversy as a complete lack of communications to staff and students over the future of exam invigilation, and a complete lack of awareness of FST programs that require in-person labs has complicated matters. Governing all of this is an expected work from home policy, which AU has been promising for at least two years now.

It should be noted that working from home is broadly popular and many AUFA members have been positively impacted by the shift. At the same time there is a significant minority who are adversely impacted by the forced work from home due to home life situation, lack of office space, or bad internet. Many people took jobs at AU on the expectation they’d have an office.

The campaign

AUFA and AUPE local 69 began campaigning on keeping jobs in Athabasca with a request that future positions be posted to the town. The campaign was successful in raising awareness, but it was not successful in keeping jobs in town. However once it became clear that the executives had left town, a town advocacy group was created to lobby for the cause. The lobbying was publicly funded by both the Town and County, involved several connected conservatives, and hiring a lobbyist who had a long history with Premier Kenney.

The jobs mandate

On March 24th, the Premier, Minister of Advanced Education, and Minister of Agriculture and Forestry all attended a packed town hall in Athabasca. There, they announced the following:

• That Athabasca residents would be appointed to the Board of Governors

• That the AU Board must develop and implement a comprehensive talent development, attraction, and retention strategy by June 30th to maintain and grow a range of employees in Athabasca

• That the AU Board must develop and implement a reopening strategy to resume most employees working onsite

• To allow public access to services such as registries, student support, and specialized services

This was a complete reversal of all AU plans since Fassina became President. Notably, no representatives from Athabasca University attended the town hall.

I met with Minister Nicolaides on April 26th who provided further details:

• There is no interest in forced relocation of AUFA members

• Those who are in Athabasca should receive incentives of some form for the university to determine

• This approach will likely take time

• A priority in the mandate is to re-centre AU’s senior leadership in Athabasca

AU’s Response

AU’s current administration have made the ‘near-virtual’ campus a top priority and the Board of Governors approved a strategic plan which would permanently move most staff to work from home. Although originally there was discussion of a hybrid model in the Athabasca area, it is clear those offices were intended for partial or complete closure as well. The announcement of the Premier clearly caught AU Executive off guard.

After an initial response that said very little, Peter Scott said the following in a letter to AU staff:  

… Consequently, we have received several inquiries from AU team members regarding reports of these [The Minister’s] comments. I would like to underline that our operations, mission, and mandate remain unchanged.

AU’s mandate, developed by the Board of Governors in consultation with the Minister of Advanced Education, provides the direction under which the Board is obligated to manage and operate the university under the Post-secondary Learning Act [PSLA s.60(1)(a)]. AU is leading the future of open and accessible education and our mandate and direction are clear. We are committed to “…open access and digitally enabled lifelong learning [as] … Canada’s only public and research-intensive university offering fully accredited distributed learning from its online virtual campus.”
…

The university has been clear in every meeting with the Government of Alberta, the town and county councils of Athabasca, and local community members that AU has no plans to leave the community, that we are reaffirming our primary physical location is in Athabasca by ending office leases in Calgary and Edmonton, and that we will continue to give preference to suitably qualified candidates for both place-based and virtual roles who live in, or are interested in moving to, the Athabasca region.

The gist of the above message is a hard ‘no’ to the government’s order, relying on the notion that AU’s near-virtual plan is a part of its mandate and thus can’t be changed. This is incorrect, although it is definitely problematic for a government to allow an updated institutional mandate and then overrule it, it is completely within their legislative power to do so.

Further comment from President Scott at the last General Faculties Council underlined his full intention to resist the government mandate, leaning heavily on the concept of institutional autonomy and openly insulting the Premier and Minister of Advanced Education. Although every faculty association has been encouraging its administration to stand up to the government for decades, the President’s hypocrisy is troubling.

Autonomy

Institutional autonomy is an important concept in universities and is tied heavily with concepts of collegial governance and academic freedom. If a university is too beholden to a government, it compromises the integrity of the academic mission. Interference in internal operations prevents a university from being a true place of learning, and instead corrupting it to a political tool of the government.

A February 25th email from President Scott underlines his enthusiasm for this kind of university:

On a positive note, it is really heartening to see in the provincial budget a focus on "powering up" the Alberta 2030: Skills for Jobs agenda. The government has come forward with a future-facing plan that includes targeted opportunities over the next three years for Alberta’s post-secondary institutions to compete for new initiative funding.

Work-integrated learning, for example, is a key component of the plan, so government is proposing increased work placement support in a broad range of industries experiencing skills shortages. At AU, we know many of our learners are already focused on the world of work, balancing careers, family, and education; so, this should be an area in which we might think creatively.

Where was the President’s defiance at this point? Not only is the extent to which AU’s budget been cut still kept secret, but the current Alberta government is openly trying to rebuild the post-secondary sector in their party vision. Massive cuts to almost all PSEs followed by new money tied to metrics is a deliberate attempt to reshape the teaching and research into job creation, which is a complete misread of the purpose of a university. This gross violation of institutional autonomy was cheerlead by President Scott.

The location of a university’s buildings and jobs is not within the spirit of institutional autonomy. Grande Prairie Regional College could not close its campus and move to Edmonton and then cry foul if the government intervened. Universities are public works projects and placing them in key locations to boost the economy is the normal function of a government. Ensuring they stay there is similarly just as normal.

AUFA’s Position

Since 2015, AUFA has held a position that Athabasca University should at minimum maintain or at best expand its presence in the Town of Athabasca.

With regards to working in-office, AUFA’s position is that it should be down to member choice. As the UCP has mentioned there should be inducements to work in Athabasca, these inducements should be tied to required in-office hours at the campus. Members who wish to work entirely from home, regardless of location, can forego the inducements. Those who do not wish to be affected by this change, should not be.

Any administrative plans that may change the working conditions of our members should be done through thorough consultation with the union, and in compliance with our collective agreement.

Why AUFA holds this position

• This issue primarily affects Athabasca members, who have repeatedly supported this position

• An overall majority of AUFA members has supported some continuing hiring in the town

• This is a unified issue with AUPE Local 69, and brings the two unions closer together

• The position can be supported without adversely affecting members outside of Athabasca

• AU is the top employer in Athabasca, as jobs leave the quality of life for the remaining AUFA members will suffer

• The desire for administration to run a fully online workplace is tied to a desire for increased casualization, contracting out, and other forms of union-busting

• AU is a less appealing target for government cuts when it is tied to a small town that has swung both Conservative and NDP

What happens next?

The UCP have already made good on their promise on the Board of Governors and have appointed three people tied to the Athabasca region to the board. Although AU has signalled it will resist this move, it is unlikely the AU Executive can do so permanently. The AU executive is hired by the Board of Governors, the Board of governors is determined by the ministry.

It is difficult to determine where this will land. However, the complete defiance of the government is an unusual, and highly risky thing for a university executive to do. One of the reasons why university Presidents so openly support bad government policy like metrics-based funding, is they know it is political folly to talk back. A more conventional political strategy would be to say little and then do the bare minimum to get the government off their backs. Open defiance may carry consequences and if  President Scott is not careful, he may dig himself a hole so deep he finds himself back in Australia.

Dave Powell

President

Athabasca University Faculty Association

AU’s promised research lockout is an illegal attack upon students (see update)

UPDATE April 7th: Within an hour of the blog going out, we received word that the AVP Research is now working on a way to pay tricouncil-funded research assistants in a potential work stoppage. Other issues related to distribution of research funds are as of yet unresolved.

On April 1st, the Associate Vice President of Research, Andrew Perrin, sent an email to staff stating that research activities would cease during a strike. This also includes paid Research Assistant (RA) work. AUFA Executive is currently investigating ways to support RAs who lack union protection, should AU lay them off in any potential work stoppage.

The email reads as follows:

“All research activities will be paused during a labour disruption.

This includes most paid research assistant and trainee work supervised by an AUFA member, as well as administrative functions such as grant reviews and internal submission and approval of applications. AU is unable to provide any support services for research activities to AUFA members while on strike. We will not process any reimbursements for research activities or travel undertaken during a labour disruption. Access to AU’s digital and physical research infrastructure would also not be permitted during a disruption.

AUFA members on Research and Study Leave will have their leave paused in the event of a strike. They will not be compensated during a strike or reimbursed for research expenses normally paid by AU.”

AUFA specifically exempted research activities from a potential strike due to the nature of research, indirect relationship to core university operations, and impact on both researchers and students.

Notably this email was not circulated to students and no clarity has been provided to Research Assistants. During AUFA’s strike authorization vote last Monday, the employer also applied for the right to lock us out.

RAs are our students, and this is a unnecessary attempt to punish students during a work stoppage. A similar research lockout was tried at the University of Lethbridge. Their administration was forced to backtrack because it is illegal.

The Social Sciences and Humanites Research Council (SSHRC) provided the following written statement to CAUT.

In the event of a strike at the institution, the agencies would maintain grant and award funding to researchers, students and fellows for existing research projects. Funds for grants, fellowships, and scholarships must continue to be used for the eligible expenses for which they were awarded. During this time, in keeping with the Tri-Agency Guide on Financial Administration (TAGFA), the institution must ensure that the research project and/or the grantee's signing authority is not compromised. As such, a grantee may choose to delegate signing authority to one or more person at the university for the purpose of approving research expenditures directly related to the funded research.

As indicated in the “Authorization of grant expenditures” section of the TAGFA: “The grant recipient holds the authority to use the grant funds.  Only the grant recipient can delegate authority to use the grant funds. The delegate should possess the skills and knowledge necessary to exercise the role effectively. Approval of the delegated authority must be formally documented using an appropriate delegation instrument and in accordance with the administering institution’s relevant policies and requirements.”  Therefore unless otherwise pre-authorized, only the grantee or authorized delegate should have access to the funds. 

In short, the grant money is not Athabasca University’s to halt. 

AU’s attack on Research Assistants

There are approximately 70 research assistants at Athabasca University who are paid through grant monies. They are distributed between AUPE, AUGSA, and a large pool of excluded RAs. AU’s unilateral decision to cease their employment pay during a potential strike is an extraordinary act of cruelty against the most vulnerable employees at Athabasca University. This is particularly true for the large number of excluded RAs who do not have union protections.

We stand in solidarity with the RAs who have been unfairly targeted by AVP Research Andrew Perrin. AUFA Executive are looking in to how to provide supports for RAs who will be without jobs or union protections.

We are calling about the Associate Vice President Research to retract his statement, and instead promise to reverse course on this illegal attack upon students and faculty.

Solidarity,

David Powell

AUFA President 

AU Files Baffling Unfair Labour Practice Against AUFA

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

Here’s what the cards look like:

Background

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

Bad Faith

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

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

Summary

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

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

David Powell

AUFA President

AUFA, AUPE, and CUPE sign solidarity pledge

In anticipation of a work stoppage, the unions representing support staff, faculty, and tutors and academic experts at Athabasca University have signed a solidarity pledge:

AUPE Local 69, CUPE Local 3911, and AUFA agree that, in the event of a strike and/or lockout affecting one union, the other unions will encourage their members to refuse to perform work beyond their normally assigned duties, specifically work typically done by striking and/or locked out workers, as is their right under s.149(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Code.

What this means is that the three largest unions at AU will ask their members to not take on the work of any striking workers.

We anticipate that this pledge will intensify the operational disruption any strike will cause AU and, thereby, increase the pressure on AU to come to a reasonable settlement.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. Can we really refuse to do work normally performed by other workers when they are on strike?

A. Yes. The Labour Relations Code prohibits employers from taking action against any employee who refuses to “perform all or some of the duties and responsibilities of another employee who is participating in a strike.”

Q. Why would we want to refuse to perform struck work?

A. Two reasons. First, we already have full workloads. Taking on extra work is just not possible. Second, refusing struck work builds solidarity among AU staff. Specifically, if AUFA members refuse to perform AUPE or CUPE work when they are on strike, AUPE and CUPE members are more likely to refuse to perform AUFA work when we’re out. The heightened operational disruption caused by refusing to perform struck work raises the cost to AU of any work stoppage. This means AU is more likely to negotiate a fair deal, rather than force a strike.

Q. Will refusing struck work harm students?

A. Yes. Disrupting AU’s operations to apply pressure on AU to settle is the point of a strike. If AU chooses to force a strike by not negotiating an acceptable deal, the best we can do for students is to try to make that strike as short as possible. Refusing to do struck work is a part of maximizing the pressure on AU to settle.

Q. Can AU just hire replacement workers?

A. Theoretically, yes. But, in reality, AU would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get hundreds of replacement workers who know how to do our jobs. And, even if AU were to somehow magically find hundreds of suitable replacement workers, how would they onboard and train them in a timely manner? Practically speaking, the only pool of available and qualified workers able to keep the lights on during a strike are AU employees in other bargaining units. This solidarity pledge denies AU access to these workers.

Q. What happens if AUPE or CUPE strikes and I decide to do their struck work?

A. In the short term, probably nothing. When that strike settles, though, it will be evident that you scabbed on your AUPE or CUPE colleagues and undermined their ability to get a fair deal. They will likely be very unhappy with you. Common outcomes include social exclusion, public shaming, and quiet payback via doing jobs you need done poorly and/or slowly. When it is AUFA’s turn to strike, they may then scab on you, undermining our ability to get a fair deal. It is just better not to scab when someone else strikes. It’s called solidarity.

Q. If there is a strike and I am asked to do struck work, how do I decline it?

A. You can tell your supervisor, “that is struck work and I won’t be performing it as is my right under the Labour Relations Code.” You can also contact your union for assistance. If AU disciplines you for your refusal, AUFA will appeal the discipline as well as file an unfair labour practice complaint at the Labour Board.

In solidarity,

David Powell, President

AU's near-virtual process violates bargaining freeze period, labour law

Earlier this month, AU sent all AUFA members in the Edmonton area who would have had an office prior to covid a letter informing them of the outcome of a job assessment. Almost all members were told they would work from home permanently, and the letter then asked them to accept this change. Although the ‘accept’ was later updated to ‘acknowledge’ once it was pointed out this was unintentionally conferring some bizarre authority on individual staff, this entire process is a violation of labour law.

AUFA is informing its members not to sign these letters, at the request of legal counsel.

In a unionized environment, the union is the sole bargaining agent of its members. Furthermore, during open bargaining (which has been going on for a very long time), the employer cannot change terms of work without the union’s permission. In short, this change to terms of work needs to be negotiated rather than asserted.

This issue is not simply a point of principle as AUFA members are almost all working from home anyways, but one of material importance. AU’s offices provided work spaces, bandwidth, electricity, accessibility, ergonomics, and other forms of structure and support for doing work. All of these costs will be transferred to the staff sent from home, and there is no indication on how this will be handled beyond a vague promise of an updated policy.

Currently, AU academics are governed by a stale-dated Telework Policy, and other staff who are working from home are subject to an emergency setup which provides a small bi-weekly stipend and a one-time office setup fee. Once the emergency situation ends, so too will those supports. Furthermore, there have been significant issues with accommodation during this process with simple requests like sit-stand desks taking several months. This leads to major concerns about workplace equity and safety.

AU must work through AUFA, not around us, and must negotiate this significant change to ensure that AUFA members receive a fair deal. A copy of the letter sent to the Chief Human Resources Officer is here.

David Powell

AUFA President

Members win back market supplements

Following pressure from members in FHD, HR has run up the white flag and says it will restore cancelled market supplements as well as extend all FHD and FB supplements to June 30, 2023. HR is also now consulting AUFA about its new process for reviewing and renewing supplements. This post provides the most recent information that we have on this topic. Much of the information that follows comes from HR. Member should be cautious about accepting this explanation at face value.

For background, in October, AUFA discovered that AU had not renewed market supplements to many nurses in the Faculty of Health Disciplines (FHD), some with no notice. At least four faculty members received a resultant pay cut. Members in the Faculty of Business (FB) also reported that market supplement were being renewed until the end of March 2022 (instead of the usual five-year term). HR declined to provide any explanation for these changes or take any action to remedy them. Complaints to the Deans received an unhelpful, but ominous indication that the system was changing but that supplements were not guaranteed which only fed into fears.

What HR says it wanted to do

HR says its intention was to set up a new system for market-supplement renewals. Under this new system, all market supplements that expired in a given year would do so on June 30 of that year. Renewals would be based upon fresh market data that AU will receive in March of every year, as opposed to relying on their increasingly stale dated analysis.

In order to move from the current system of market supplements expiring at various dates during each expiry year, HR intended to bridge all supplements from their expiry date to the next June 30th. This was, HR says, intended to standardize the expiry dates, while continuing all existing market supplements.

What HR actually did

HR says that HR staff made a series of cascading clerical and communication errors. These included:

• Renewing FB supplements to the wrong date (March 31, 2022), leading FB members to believe they were losing supplements or they would be short-term only.

• Not telling payroll to continue FHD supplements until June 30, 2023, resulting in FHD supplements being terminated and pay cut off, sometime without notice.

• Not giving any AUFA members who were affected any information about what was going on despite being asked about what was going on this by members.

• Not giving Deans a clear message to give to their faculties, leaving them to ominously state “the system is changing, and nothing is guaranteed” which further fed member fear.

• Ignoring two efforts by AUFA to flag this issue and failing to inform the Chief Human Resources Officer about AUFA’s concerns.

What will happen next

HR indicates it will take the following steps:

• FHD members who saw their pay cut will have their supplements restored, extended to June 30, 2023, and receive back pay.

• Ongoing market supplements in all faculties will be renewed until June 30, 2023 to allow the new system plenty of time before it kicks in. Any new supplements awarded before June 30, 2023 will have that date as their expiration date.

• HR is in the process of contacting affected AUFA members to sort out fixes.

• HR director Charlene Polege will send emails to affected faculties and attend meetings to answer questions.

• HR is consulting with AUFA about a new process for reviewing market supplements which will award supplements by group rather than individual

Analysis

This incident tells several things. First, there are very serious questions about the competence of AU’s HR shop. It is almost unfathomable how HR staff could have so comprehensively screwed up the implementation of a straight-forward change. It is also almost impossible to believe that this problem went on for months, was the subject of multiple queries by AUFA members and AUFA, and, somehow, none of the senior HR team were aware of the problem. This speaks to the widespread culture of secrecy prevalent in university administration, and how it led HR staff to believe that a refusal to share useful information with affected members, Deans, payroll, and AU management was normal. In any other organization, terminations would flow from such a major screw up. It is unclear if there will be any consequences.

Second, member pressure works. The reasonably quick and comprehensive resolution that AU is offering was a direct result of AUFA members making their complaints public and pressuring decision makers. A flood of angry emails to the President, Provost, and Chief Human Resources Officer from FHD had a telling effect. Past history suggests that members would not have received a fast and comprehensive remedy if we relied on the grievance process. This has implications for how AUFA will handle problems going forward when HR ignores our initial communications.

Third, this issue is not resolved in two important ways. While HR has offered a resolution, this resolution has not yet been implemented. AUFA will be monitoring implementation and would appreciate hearing about any problems that members encounter. HR has also committed to consulting with AUFA about the new market-supplement renewal system that they are implementing.

AU’s consultation efforts around the 2019 designation policy change illustrate that AU can organize consultation in ways such that consultation is effectively meaningless and results in processes that harm the interests of AUFA members. The best way we can ensure that consultation is meaningful and does not result in harmful policies is a mobilized membership that will not tolerate these outcomes.

Finally, HR’s handling of this process has resulted in lingering damage. Member morale and trust in both HR and AU, which are low, have been further diminished. One member resigned in the wake of this issue, and despite the issue being resolved this was the last straw in terms of longstanding abuses from AU management. Market supplements are an issue rife with equity concerns over who or what is of value to AU. Although AUFA has always stated we would prefer supplements be on base salary, if we are to use this system, there are significant questions about its equity impact on the university and who is valued for what.

This was briefly highlighted when it was apparent the supplements simply vanished for the mostly female Faculty of Health Disciplines, while the mostly male Faculty of Business at least had the courtesy of the short renewals. Although this was unintentional and a result of mistakes made by two different HR Client partners, such is often the way of inequity. While mistakes do happen, the context in which this mistake happened (years of attacks on AUFA members by HR and AU) is important.

AU’s bargaining update last Friday tries to justify AU’s demand for rollbacks as necessary to implement the Imagine plan. Essentially, AU is saying that the Imagine plan requiring harming the interests of AU’s staff. That blunt messaging suggests our victory on market supplements is more about AU blinking in response to member pressure than any sort of meaningful re-evaluation of its broader approach to labour relations.

In solidarity,

Dave Powell, President

AUFA pickets in solidarity with nurses

Twelve AUFA members (plus kids and partners) joined approximately 150 other trade unionists picketing at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton. The nurses were protesting the UCP’s attack on their wages and working conditions.

This picket provided a rare chance for some face-to-face socializing. Public support (i.e., honking and waving) for the picket was high. AUFA’s job action committee expects we’ll be organizing additional picketing related to our own bargaining this fall.

Bob Barnetson, Chair

Job Action Committee

Can AUFA members refuse work outside of their job descriptions?

The AUFA office has been increasingly approached by members asking if they can refuse work that is not in their job description. Although the short answer is ‘probably’ the full answer is complicated and bears exploration.

Current Practice

There is a longstanding disconnect at AU between job descriptions and the work done. Although jobs can be reviewed once a year, this rarely takes place because of the work involved for HR and management, and the assigned duties slowly drift away from the job description. Eventually, it means many members do work that has nothing to do with their positions.

This situation is normally voluntary. Many members create their own work, takes on new duties for career growth, or just want to go with the flow. However, there are situations where members may wish refuse assigned duties as being outside of their job description. This is particularly true if the member wants an updated job description that reflects their real work, and management or HR are refusing to do the update. At that point, following the documented duties looks like the best leverage the member has.

Legalities

Although the facts of the matter may vary, the law is probably on the member’s side. Job descriptions must have legal meaning and the employer’s refusal to update a job description is their problem. This is particularly true in the IT Optimization where members were made redundant and then moved into new jobs and are now being asked to continue the old work that was made redundant. The correct management response to a bad job description should be to correct the assigned duties or the job description, not discipline the member for being caught in the middle.

However, the employer may attempt discipline anyways because threatening members may be more agreeable to them than rewriting job descriptions. Under the ‘work now grieve later’ principle any union will advise you follow direct orders which the union can then grieve and resolve down the line. This is because the employer may choose to invoke discipline, even if the orders are faulty.  

Can I lose my job?

It is unlikely a member would lose their job over refusal to perform work not in their job description. Assigning a job description and then requiring unrelated work is the employer’s problem and something they should fix. As well, the principle of progressive discipline means in most cases corrective action should begin light before escalating. Jumping to the most severe form of discipline weakens the employer’s case, and also doesn’t solve the problem of getting the work they want done. Because of these factors, AUFA’s strong appeal process should successfully halt attempts where the employer chooses discipline over accurate job descriptions. The path of least resistance is just doing the job of managing properly.

However, legal outcomes are about likelihoods, not guarantees. As such, AUFA always recommends that when given a direct order by your supervisor, follow it while we resolve an disputes over its legality. We cannot advise behaviour that may trigger discipline, even if the discipline is unreasonable or unfair. That said, members are free to make their own decisions and AUFA will represent our members to the best of our ability. 

David Powell

AUFA President