Jun 13, 2018 | Bargaining, News
In a May 29th post, we reported on a continuing disagreement between ULFA and representatives of the Board of Governors of the University of Lethbridge concerning the applicability of “bridging” provisions within the Alberta Labour Relations Code to our current negotiations and collective agreement.
After several exchanges, the two sides have been unable to resolve this dispute.
In a letter dated June 12, University President Mike Mahon invoked the provisions of Article 1 of our current collective agreement, requiring the President of the Faculty Association to convene an Interpretation Committee on this matter within 5 Working Days.
ULFA has indicated to the University its belief that Article 1 is an inappropriate forum for the resolution of questions surrounding the application of the Code to our current collective agreement. We believe that the invocation of Article 1 by the University in the face of these objections could be understood as an unfair labour practice in as much as it could be understood as circumventing the provisions of the Labour Code and causing the Association and its members to surrender rights they have under that legislation. The Association has determined that the best course available to it in the face of this emergent request from the Board is to file an application with the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) within the next four working days.
We have informed the University of this intention this afternoon.
The process to be followed in this case will be similar to that followed in our previous application to the Board with regard to the relationship between the Faculty and Sessional Lecturers’ “Handbooks.” The expedited process in that case took approximately two and a half months to resolve. Because this matter, like the last, relates to ongoing bargaining, we expect that the process will be similarly expedited. We remain, of course, open to other solutions that do not abrogate our members’ rights under the Code.
We will post updates as further information becomes available.
Jun 9, 2018 | Bargaining, News
Bargaining teams from ULFA and the Board of Governors met for a scheduled 4 hour meeting on June 8th. During the meeting, which was extended by almost an extra hour, the two sides exchanged language on 18 articles and schedules (you can see the status of all articles here):
- Article 3: Amendments (presented by ULFA)
- Article 4: Applications and exclusions (presented by ULFA)
- Article 5: Recognition (presented by ULFA)
- Article 6: Communication and Information (presented by ULFA)
- Article 9: Personal files (presented by ULFA)
- Article 10: Courses taught in addition to assigned teaching duties (presented by ULFA)
- Article 11: Rights and responsibilities (presented by the Board)
- Article 16: Termination of appointment (presented by the Board)
- Article 22: Grievance (presented by the Board)
- Article 23: Mediation (presented by the Board)
- Article 24: Appeals of recommendations by STP Committees (presented by the Board)
- Article 26: Termination (presented by the Board)
- Article 29: Intellectual property (presented by the Board)
- Article 30: Travel fund (presented by the Board)
- Article 31: Research fund (presented by the Board)
- Schedule A: Salary schedules and stipends (presented by ULFA)
- Schedule B: Economic benefits (presented by ULFA)
- Schedule E: Copyright (presented by the Board)
Finally, the Board side gave a preliminary presentation on their proposal for a new structure to the Collective Agreement comprising a “Common Agreement” (i.e. articles that apply to all categories of Academic Staff), and four “Parts” that apply to different categories of members (i.e. the Professoriate, Librarians, Instructors/Academic Assistants, Sessional Lecturers).
The language presented ranged from new proposals (i.e. the first language presented on the Articles in question), to a fourth or fifth exchange. New articles included Articles 16, 26, 29, 30 and 31 and Schedules A and B. Articles 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 24, as well as Schedule E, involved first responses to material previously proposed by the other side. Articles 3, 10, 22, and 23 have been exchanged several times, in some cases as recently as this past Monday.
In contrast to last session, in which ULFA was able to accept in principle two responses prepared by the Board, on this day the two sides were unable to come to any provisional agreements. Several articles, however, seem quite close to provisional settlement. It seems likely that the two sides will agree to some at our next meeting.
Under the ground rules we are following, articles can be accepted in principle by the two sides during negotiations; final acceptance, however, depends on a settlement of the entire Collective Agreement. This approach allows greater flexibility in negotiations as it allows on the one hand for the two sides to build trust and agreement by gradually settling language; but on the other it means that they can also always reopen otherwise “settled” articles should additional tradeoffs become necessary to settle more contentious issues.
In addition to these “easy” articles, there are others in which there are larger differences in goals or expectations. For these it seems likely that the two sides will need a number of additional meetings and exchanges of language before agreement is reached.
As with all negotiations this spring, the meeting was cordial and included some broad and helpful discussions about the motivations behind some language proposals and about how open the presenters might be to particular concepts that could arise in counter-proposals. The next bargaining session is scheduled for June 18.
Jun 5, 2018 | Bargaining, News
The ULFA and Board bargaining teams met for a three-hour session on June 4.
The sides had agreed that they would discuss the economic context of negotiations in this meeting and exchange responses to each other’s proposals. (You can follow the status of individual articles here).
Board presentations
The Board side presented responses to the Preamble, Article 3 (Amendments), 7 (Annual meeting), 8 (Delegation) and 10 (Courses taught in addition to assigned teaching duties). They also introduced a new proposal on Article 25 (Supervision and Discipline).
In the case of Articles 7 and 8, the two sides were able to provisionally sign off on the proposed revisions. According to the ground rules we are using for these negotiations, articles that have been initialled are considered approved in principle; final approval, however, depends in each case on approval of the entire agreement.
ULFA presentations
ULFA prepared responses on Articles 1 (Interpretation–Combined with 22 Grievance), 4 (Applications and Exclusions), 5 (Recognition), 9 (Personal files), 22 (Grievance), 23 (Mediation), 27 (Holidays), 28 (Vacations). It presented its language on 27 and 28 before we took a break, halfway through our scheduled meeting time. At the break, ULFA proposed that presentation and discussion of the remainder of these articles be put off until our next meeting, so as to leave sufficient time for the two sides to present about the economic landscape for bargaining.
Discussion of economic contexts
The two sides devoted the second half of the meeting to presentations on the economic context for negotiations. In both cases, these made frequent reference to our main comparators: U of C, U of A, Regina, U of Saskatchewan, and Trent. Mount Royal and Athabasca were also occasionally referred to.
The topics covered by the two presentations included: relative cost of living (housing prices, consumer goods, utilities) in Lethbridge vs the cities of the comparator institutions; levels of University revenue (including tuition revenue and government grants); differences among the salaries paid at the U of L vs. its comparator institutions (including current salary levels by rank, the growth of salaries, and the percentage of the total budget that salaries represent); ratios of temporary (term) to continuing/tenured academic staff positions; and the breakdown and history of the University’s budget allocations. Both sides had questions that will require further research.
ULFA also informed the Board of the areas where members have indicated that improvements to health benefits are most critical, and is provisionally scheduled to make an opening proposal on language pertaining to economic matters (i.e. Schedules A and B) at our next meeting on June 8.
May 29, 2018 | Bargaining
In its first bargaining “primer,” the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) discussed the answer to a common question we have received from our membership: what happens under the Labour Relations Code if the collective agreement expires before we have finished our negotiations?
The short answer is that under the “bridging” provisions of Section 130(1) of the Code, all articles of the collective agreement that were in effect when notice to bargain was given remain in effect until (1) negotiations are concluded; (2) negotiations are interrupted by job action; or (3) two years have passed without ratification of a new contract.
This means, for example, that tenure, academic freedom, and all other provisions of the Handbook remain in effect even after the expiry date of the Handbook until a new contract is ratified, there is a strike or a lockout, or no agreement has been reached after two years of negotiations.
In our blog post, we indicated that the “bridging” provisions also apply to the economic provisions of Schedules A and B: professional supplement, career progress and merit, for example, as well as our annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) as agreed to under Schedule A.02.1. Our understanding is that this means that these adjustments are made on an interim basis on July 1, despite the expiry of the contract.
In every case, these contractual provisions can be modified by the terms of any subsequent settlement, meaning, for example, that the parties can agree to changes in career structure or ranks, or decide on a different COLA formula. Whether these changes are applied from the date of ratification, retroactively to the expiry date of the previous contract, or to some other date the parties agree upon is also part of the negotiations.
These rules under the Labour Code are quite different from what happened in practice under the Post-Secondary Learning Act (PSLA): under the PSLA, Terms and Conditions remained in effect until the parties agreed to modify them. Economic benefits were subject to mandatory arbitration in the event no agreement could be reached by the end of the contract. In the event negotiations did continue past the expiry date, the employer’s practice was to observe the previous terms and conditions, but freeze salary adjustments until either an agreement was reached, or an arbitrator made a ruling. The new terms were then instituted retroactively to the expiry date of the contract. Under the PSLA, in contrast to the Code, Faculty Associations had few tools available to them to challenge employer actions in this area.
In the first few negotiating sessions, the Board of Governors’ negotiating team indicated that they disagreed with ULFA’s interpretation of the application of the bridging provisions of Section 130(1) of the Code to our Handbook, particularly with regard to its application to Economic Benefits under Schedule A (this disagreement concerns the application to pay increases such as COLA, career progress, and merit; it does not concern base salary, which both sides agree will continue past the end of the contract until there is a new agreement or job action). Since then, there also has been an informal meeting of non-bargaining representatives from the two sides on the same question, which currently remains unresolved. If no resolution proves possible between the sides, it becomes a question for mediation or the Labour Board.
We will provide updates as this issue develops further.
May 25, 2018 | Bargaining
The University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) and representative of the Board of Governors of the University of Lethbridge finished three days of negotiations on Tuesday May 15. These were the first three days in which language was exchanged.
Friday May 11
Our first meeting was on Friday May 11, held in the ULFA offices.
Management’s goal was to present the beginnings of its proposal to merge the two Handbooks into a single collective agreement. To this end they proposed revisions to the Preamble and Objectives, Articles 1 (Interpretation), 2 (Definitions), 3 (Amendments), 4 (Applications and Exclusions), and 5 (Recognition), all of which they suggested would belong to the “common” section of the combined document. For the most part, the proposed changes to these articles were relatively minor and involved housekeeping issues (standardising language, correcting typos, etc.). Both parties agreed in principle that Article 1 should be merged into Article 22 (Grievance).
ULFA, for its part, concentrated on language that it thought the two sides could reach agreement on relatively quickly. To this end, it presented language on Articles 10 (Courses taught in addition to assigned teaching duties), 13 (Assignment of Duties), 22 (Grievance and Interpretation), 23 (Mediation), 24 (Appeals of STP), 27 (Holidays), and 28 (Vacations); again, the proposed changes were relatively minor.
Monday May 14
Our second meeting was held on Monday May 14, in a Boardroom in the 7th floor administrative offices.
At this meeting, the Management side responded to ULFA’s proposals from the previous Friday for Articles 10 and 22. It also continued its presentation of a proposal for the “common” parts of its combined Sessional and Faculty Handbook, providing language for Articles 6 (Communication), 7 (Annual Meeting), 8 (Delegation), and 9 (Personal Files).
ULFA presented additional new language. This included Articles 11 (Rights and Responsibilities), and 33 (Gradual Retirement & Reduced Load Status), where we also thought agreement was likely to come relatively quickly. We also presented some more significant changes in Article 34 (Leaves of Absence), a new Article 36 (Employment Equity & Accommodation) that has come out of work by the Gender Equity and Diversity Committee and the Joint Working Group on Equity, and a proposal for deleting Schedules C, D, G, H, I, K, L, M, O, P, and R, with the language that is still relevant being incorporated into various Articles.
Tuesday May 15
Our third meeting was held on Tuesday May 15, in the ULFA offices.
ULFA presented changes in Articles that deal with hiring, promotion, and increments: Articles 14 (Professional Librarians), 15 (Instructors and Academic Assistants), 17 (Personnel Committees), 18 (Appointment of Faculty Members), 19 (Probation and Tenure for Faculty Members), 20 (Promotion of Faculty Members), and 21 (Increments for Faculty Members/Professional Librarians), and a new Article 35 (Sessional Lecturers) based on Article 9 of the Sessional Lecturers Handbook. While most of these changes were superficial and made with the intent of merging duplicate language, eliminating cross-references, and making the Collective Agreement easier to use, there were some significant new proposals, principally relating to the terms of employment and working conditions for Sessional Lecturers.
For its part, the Management side responded to ULFA’s proposals on Articles 23 (Mediation), 27 (Holidays), and 28 (Vacation). ULFA also responded to Management’s proposals for the Preamble and Objectives, and Articles 3 (Amendments), 7 (Annual Meeting), 8 (Delegation), and 10 (Courses taught in addition to assigned teaching duties). We appear to be close to agreement on a number of these.
The groundwork has been laid for many of the key issues that we wish to address in these negotiations. Both sides have agreed that in our next meeting on June 4, we will begin to talk about the economic context of our monetary proposals, with a view to beginning discussions around salary and benefits fairly soon.
May 11, 2018 | Bargaining
Over the past two weeks, the bargaining team has continued to work hard at preparing our positions, and has met with the resource committees for Handbooks and Economic Benefits.
We met with the Board team again this week, and have two more meetings scheduled for next week. Meetings thus far have been collegial and productive. We are using these early meetings to exchange and discuss the initial language each side has prepared on many key issues. Thus far, despite some apparent differences, we see a lot of common ground.
After Tuesday, our next bargaining meeting will be in early June, which will give both teams time to produce thoughtful, well-considered responses to each others’ proposals. We will provide a more comprehensive update on bargaining during that interval also. Stay tuned for more.
