Jan 30, 2018 | Bargaining
As we reported on Sunday, our case to the ALRB has attracted an intervention from the Faculty Associations at Mount Royal University and the University of Alberta. A second intervention has recently also been received from the Athabasca University Faculty Association (AUFA).
In their intervention, the AUFA argues that the position taken by the University of Lethbridge will result in “irreparable harm… by creating divisions where none exist. Strategies based on “divide and conquer” tactics are contrary to public policy and the Code ought not to be interpreted in a manner which encourages them.”
AUFA further indicates that it will show “that not only does the language of the statute on its face support ULFA’s position, but the policy underlying [ULFA’s] approach is entirely consistent with historic Canadian approaches to bargaining unit structures in the broader public sector.”
We will continue to update members as new information becomes available.
Note
This post has been written in order to keep the membership of ULFA informed about the status of this important case. While it attempts to provide an accurate account of the case for a non-specialist audience, it has not been written by lawyers and is without prejudice. Any divergence in this post from the position represented in documents filed with the ALRB is accidental and does not represent the official position of the Association.
Jan 28, 2018 | Bargaining
There have been several developments in the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA)’s application to the Alberta Labour Relations Board for a ruling on the number of bargaining units it represents in this year’s negotiations. You can read more about the background to this application in previous posts, here, here, and here.
The University of Lethbridge and ULFA have both filed responses in this case. The Faculty Associations of Mount Royal University (MRFA) and the University of Alberta (AASUA) have also jointly requested intervenor status. All these submissions are public documents. You can access them here.
The ALRB has set a date for a resolution meeting (at which the two parties will attempt to reach an agreement or at least address some procedural issues as case management) on February 6. If the parties fail to reach an agreement at this meeting, a hearing has been set for February 12 and 13 in Calgary.
Background information (history, stakes, implications)
As the case has progressed, it has become clear that important points of law are at stake. In the rest of this post we discuss the background to the case and its current status.
History
A little over two weeks ago, ULFA filed a request for a ruling with the ALRB regarding the number of bargaining units represented by the Association under the Labour Relations Code.
The ALRB agreed to an expedited response and hearing schedule for this case (Case number GE-07696). This involved shortened deadlines for responses from the parties and an early hearing date. The schedule was expedited because of the time-sensitive nature of our collective bargaining. It is essential that ULFA and the University resolve this disagreement prior to the start of collective bargaining.
Broad impact
As the joint submission of the MRFA and AASUA argues, this case involves fundamental principles of statutory interpretation as determined by the Supreme Court of Canada. It also will have profound implications for labour relations in the Post-Secondary sector in Alberta. Indeed, they argue, “every public post-secondary institution and their paired academic staff association in Alberta will be directly affected by the [Labour Relations] Board’s decision” in this case.
The issues at stake
The heart of the case involves the question of how many “bargaining units” ULFA represents among the “Academic Staff” of the University of Lethbridge.
“Academic Staff” is an official designation under the Post Secondary Learning Act (PSLA) and Labour Relations Code (Code) of Alberta. The membership of this class is designated by a University’s Board of Governors (under the current acts) in consultation with the Faculty Association. At the University of Lethbridge, the “Academic Staff” currently includes Faculty Members (i.e. Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors), Librarians, Instructors, Academic Assistants, and Sessional Lecturers.
The University’s position, based primarily on what it claims to be past practice and differences in the communities of interest, is that this designated group is divided into two “Bargaining Units,” each of which has a separate collective agreement. One of these consists of Sessional Lecturers; the other all other members of the Academic Staff (i.e. the Professoriate, Librarians, Instructors, Academic Assistants). The University argues that the two collective agreements are entirely distinct and that future bargaining must continue along these same lines.
ULFA’s position, in contrast, argues that the historical bargaining practice is largely or wholly irrelevant to the question of law at issue. ULFA also disagrees with the University’s characterization of our bargaining history and its description of the community of interest represented by the Academic Staff. In ULFA’s view, Academic Staff under the current law, regardless of purported past bargaining practice, form a single Bargaining Unit represented by a single collective agreement. ULFA has also argued that the two collective agreements are more intertwined and not nearly as different than the University suggests.
MRFA and AASUA argue that the “past practice” of the parties is completely immaterial and that the provincial and federal laws simply do not allow for the Board to decide that there are two bargaining units between ULFA and the U of L.
Implications for bargaining
The question of how many “Bargaining Units” there are–and, as a result, how many collective agreements must be negotiated–is fundamental. The answer dictates almost every aspect of negotiations, from the number of Essential Services Agreements that must be filed to the tactics used in preparing and negotiating positions. It also affects a number of legal requirements (such as notification to bargain) that have been introduced into negotiations by the shift of the Post Secondary labour sector into the Labour Relations Code.
We will continue to update the membership as this application progresses. Please contact the Faculty Association if you have any questions or comments.
Note
This post has been written in order to keep the membership of ULFA informed about the status of this important case. While it attempts to provide an accurate account of the case for a non-specialist audience, it has not been written by lawyers and is without prejudice. Any divergence in this post from the position represented in documents filed with the ALRB is accidental and does not represent the official position of the Association.
Jan 15, 2018 | Bargaining
As we reported last week, ULFA filed an application with the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) for a ruling on the relationship between the Sessional and Faculty “Handbooks.”
This application came as a result of our December 15th meeting with the Board of Governor’s bargaining team at which time we discussed the issue of whether there were two bargaining units (Sessional Lecturers vs Faculty/Professional Librarians/Instructors/Academic Assistants) and, therefore, two collective agreements (the Sessional Lecturers Handbook vs the Faculty Handbook) or whether we have one unified bargaining unit and one unified collective agreement.
It became clear at this meeting with the Board of Governors that the two parties had irreconcilable interpretations of the Labour Relations Code and the Post-Secondary Learning Act as they pertain to this issue. ULFA subsequently filed an application with the ALRB on January 4th, who in turn has accepted the case for an expedited hearing.
The hearing will take place in Calgary at a date yet to be determined in the near future. You may have also seen around campus a notice of the ALRB case posted for ULFA members to see. If you haven’t seen it in your department or around campus, please follow up with your Dean’s Office to ensure this notice is posted publicly.
We will keep you informed of developments as they arise.
Jan 11, 2018 | Bargaining, News
Extra Sessions Added
April 23, for Instructors & Academic Assistants in L1170A from 12:00 – 2:00 p.m.
Jan 7, 2018 | Bargaining
In our post on the December 15 meeting between Board and ULFA negotiating teams, we reported that there was some disagreement between the two sides as to the precise rules that would govern our negotiating in the New Year. The most fundamental of these involves the way negotiations for the “Academic Staff” bargaining unit must be conducted.
As we understand it, the Board’s position is that ULFA and the Board must negotiate separate and distinct collective agreements for Sessional Employees and Faculty, with separate Essential Services Agreements for each, separate negotiations, and, should agreement not be reached in a timely fashion, potentially separate or conflicting mediation, strike, and/or lockout processes. ULFA’s position is that ULFA represents one bargaining unit made up of all academic staff and thus, by law, we are required to enter into a single collective agreement for that bargaining unit. Further, dividing the bargaining unit into two parts with two collective agreements is inconsistent with best or common practice, the laws that govern our negotiations, and Labour Code precedent and policy.
This disagreement is important as bargaining strategy, timing decisions, the focus of bargaining committees, the group affected by an essential services agreement, an application for mediation or a strike or lockout is different depending on which view is correct. It would be very difficult to learn from the Labour Relations Board at the point of applying for mediation or a strike/lockout, that the bargaining has been for the wrong group and the parties need to start over.
At the December 15th meeting, the parties could not reach agreement on this matter and the Board announced its intention to proceed unilaterally to begin distinct Faculty and Sessional negotiations early in the new year. It further advised ULFA that the Association could seek a ruling from the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) if it disagreed with the Board’s proposed course of action. The two sides agreed at the conclusion of the meeting that a resolution of this matter was essential before negotiations could begin.
In a subsequent exchange of letters, ULFA indicated its intention to file an application with the ALRB for a ruling on the question as the Board suggested. The Board then confirmed its intention to proceed unilaterally to begin separate negotiations for Sessional and Faculty members of the Academic Staff. ULFA’s application to the ALRB was prepared over the Holiday break and filed on January 4th.
We do not have a timeline for a decision from the ALRB. We have been told, however, that cases like this can be heard quite quickly. We will continue to update the membership as the ALRB process continues.
Dec 16, 2017 | Bargaining
The Faculty Association and Board Bargaining teams met on Friday Dec. 15.
The meeting was called by the Board as a followup to our November 10 meeting to discuss various protocols and processes that will govern bargaining once it begins in the new year.
Issues discussed at the December 15th meeting included the Essential Services Agreement (ESA), the number of “tables” (i.e. the number of agreements and sets of negotiations), and a very broad overview of potential topics for negotiation.
As a result of this discussion, the two sides have discovered some important differences of opinion and understanding, particularly pertaining to the mechanics of negotiation under the Labour Relations Code and the Post Secondary Learning Act.
This is not surprising, since we are entering a completely new negotiating environment as a result of the passing of Bill 7 this past Spring. In some cases these differences need to be resolved before bargaining can begin. We have tentatively scheduled a follow-up meeting in mid January and intend to use the meantime to further research the issues in question and the avenues that exist for their resolution. In some cases, this may involve appeals to external authorities such as the Alberta Labour Relations Board.
In keeping with our practice of alternating between Board and Faculty Association space, this meeting took place in the Faculty Association offices. The Board side was represented by Chris Nicol and Ed Jurkowski (co-chairs), Carrie Takeyasu, Scott Harling, and external consultant Geoff Tierney. This was also our first opportunity to meet with new Chief Human Resources Officer Chandra Singh who began in his new position on Dec. 7.
On the Faculty Association side were Daniel Paul O’Donnell and Paul Hayes with Terry Sway and Annabree Fairweather serving as resource persons. New to the team was Rumi Graham who is serving as an observer from the Economic Benefits Committee.
