Apr 15, 2021 | Bargaining, News
The ULFA bargaining team welcomes the appointment of Locke Spencer of the Department of Physics and Astronomy as its new Chief Spokesperson.
Spencer has been appointed by the ULFA executive on recommendation of the Bargaining Resource Committee to replace Daniel Paul O’Donnell upon his acclamation to the union presidency.
Spencer played an important role in developing the current mandate and preparing language for this round of negotiations and has been attending negotiating sessions as an observer. He will assume the duties of Chief Spokesperson with immediate effect.
The other members of the Bargaining Team are Olu Awosoga, Rumi Graham, Joy Morris, and Rob Sutherland. ULFA Executive Officer Aaron Chubb provides staff support.
Apr 15, 2021 | Bargaining, News
On April 8, representatives of the Board and ULFA held their fifth bargaining session since the exchange of full proposals on January 18, 2021 (eighth overall), as ULFA members entered their tenth month “without a contract” (i.e. since the expiration of the previous Collective Agreement on June 30th, 2020). By this time in the previous round of negotiations, we had met approximately thirty times and were about six weeks from agreement.
The focus of this extended meeting was a presentation by ULFA of its “Article XX package.” This is a proposal for a reorganisation of articles pertaining to job categories and evaluation processes that ULFA believes will reduce duplication and ambiguity in the current agreement and make these extremely common and important processes both easier to oversee and less open to error and misunderstanding.
The heart of the proposal is “Article XX.” This is a proposal for a new article that collects all information about evaluation, including the criteria and processes by which career progress, merit, and requests for tenure/continuing appointments, are considered and evaluated.
Currently, this information is spread throughout the following Articles:
- Article 12: Criteria for the Extension of Probation, Tenure, Promotion, and Salary Increments for Faculty Members
- Article 14: Professional Librarians
- Article 15: Instructors[/Academic Assistants]
- Article 18: Appointment of Faculty Members
- Article 21: Increments for Faculty Members/Professional Librarians
- Article 31: Salary Schedules, Career Progress Increments, Merit Increments, and Economic Benefits
- Article 34: Sessional Lecturers
There are two main problems with the way information about evaluation is represented currently in these articles:
- There is considerable repetition across the job categories: e.g. definitions of “teaching effectiveness” and how this can be demonstrated appear in similar language in Articles 12.01.1 (Faculty), 15.06.2 (Instructors and Academic Assistants, and 34.02.2 (Sessionals); and, conversely
- There are also considerable gaps, in which members of one job category are referred to Articles pertaining to a different job category for important information about evaluation, in some cases without any explicit mention being made about how this material is to be interpreted in their case: e.g. the process for extension of probation and tenure for Professional Librarians points to the process for promotion and tenure of Faculty Members, despite the fact that Librarians and Faculty are evaluated on different criteria (Teaching, Research and Service in the case of Faculty Members; “Performance as a Professional Librarian, Research and Professional Development, and Service in the case of Professional Librarians).
The ULFA proposal reorganises this by
- Collecting all information about processes and the criteria for evaluation that is common to job categories in Articles devoted to these general processes (i.e. Article 18: Appointment; Article 34: Reappointment [Term Limited positions]; and “XX” Evaluation);
- Collecting all information specific to individual job categories (such as ranks, expectations and duties, etc.) in Articles devoted to each job category (i.e. Article 12 [Faculty], 14 [Professional Librarians], 15 [Instructors/Academic Assistants]).
This was a major proposal and the explication and presentation by ULFA of the reorganisation, additions, and deletions across these eight articles took most of the five hours allotted to bargaining by the two sides, meaning that a number of other articles prepared by both sides for presentation on the 8th had to be held over for discussion at future meetings. In some cases (e.g. Articles 12, 14, 15, 18, and 34), ULFA’s presentation also involved a response to Articles opened by the Board. In other cases (e.g. Articles 21, 31, and “XX”), ULFA was presenting new material. As is common at this point in negotiations, there was considerable conceptual discussion, particularly in this case with regard to similarities and differences between the Board and ULFA’s positions regarding term-limited positions (e.g. Sessional Lecturer and Term Appointees).
The next step with articles in the “XX group” is for the Board to make a counter proposal.
You can follow the status of all Articles opened during this round of negotiations here.
Apr 14, 2021 | Bargaining, ESA, News
The teams representing the Board and ULFA met to continue negotiating an Essential Services Agreement (ESA) Wednesday April 7th. This meeting was in follow-up to the February 11th meeting in which ULFA presented a draft ESA to the Board. ULFA’s draft was based on the signed Dec. 2019 ESA with some additional points added in part due to lessons learned from the institutional COVID-19 shutdown this past year.
During the April 7th meeting, the Board presented their response ESA proposal which rejected all of the new elements introduced in the ULFA draft ESA and also removed one item from the expired ESA that both sides had previously accepted.
The majority of the discussion centered around three topics:
- Supervision of counseling practicums
- Time-sensitive research
- Job action safety
Within the discussion there was agreement that an ESA may contain mutually agreed-upon content above and beyond the minimum required by law to protect life and health of the public. There were also points discussed that reflect a diversity of perspectives.
- Counseling Practicums
While the December 2019 ratified ESA (now expired) included a provision to allow student practicums in counselling programs to continue during job action, the Board’s current proposal removes this permission. The rationale presented for rejecting the continuation of student counselling practicums was that the host agency responsible for supervising student work can just take over the practicum clients. ULFA’s team emphasized that there is a potential danger to health in high-risk clients if the therapeutic relationship is suddenly lost. In addition, the ULFA team noted that it is unlikely that agencies would be able to take on such a large pool of clients. Both sides indicated that they will explore this issue further by contacting managers at agencies partnered with UL counselling programs to better understand the risk to the public if all of the counselling practicum students were to withdraw their counselling at once outside of the therapy plan.
- Time-sensitive research
The ULFA ESA proposal included recognition that there is shared interest in maintaining certain time-sensitive research activities during job action. Interruption in these research activities could have a long-lasting impact that will cause harm to institutional reputation and individual research programs. Research interruptions with lasting effects can include missed applications in annual grant cycles, loss of tissue samples, cell cultures, and/or cultivated plant or animal samples. There was also a discussion thread started relating to the equity of the impact of job action on research programs in various disciplines. In contrast to ULFA’s position, the Board asserted that we cannot learn useful information to inform an ESA from the 2020 COVID-19 shutdown.
- Job action safety
While the point of an ESA is to ensure safety during job action, the Board rejected the inclusion of a 6 m picket zone on the west side of campus in the ESA. This perimeter space is intended to ensure that any picket activities do not block public sidewalks and are not too close to roadways. The Board stated the item would more properly belong in a strike protocol. ULFA maintained it would be prudent to include relevant items to maintain public health and safety within the ESA agreement and not leave those items up to a strike protocol, which, unlike an ESA, is not required to be in place prior to any job action.
At the conclusion of the meeting the Board indicated that it would further investigate the need for including provisions for the counselling programs within the ESA, and ULFA indicated that its team would develop a new draft ESA to present at the next meeting.
Apr 7, 2021 | Equity and Diversity, News
Recently, the Support Network for Academics of Colour+ (SNAC+) at the University of Lethbridge released their completed RED (Rights, Equity, Diversity) Project Report and Equity Audit 2019-2020.
The RED Project Report is based on independent consultations across the UofL community and provides a critical look at the state of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) at the UofL, using an intersectional lens. The report aims to give “a summative review on the status of equity-related initiatives, programs, and services at the University of Lethbridge,” and the project outcomes, including the Equity Audit, “aim to engage the University of Lethbridge and its constituents on the present state of EDI on campus and its possibilities for the future” (RED Project Final Report, p. 11). The report and outcomes were authored by Glenda Tibe Bonifacio, Saurya Das, Caroline Hodes, and Jacklyne Cheruiyot.
ULFA would like to highlight the important work that has gone into creating the RED Project Report and its accompanying documents. This work provides a significant and timely benchmark of the state of EDI at the UofL, and shows that much work remains to be done.
RED Project Final Report
Equity Audit
Sincerely,
Claudia Steinke
ULFA President on behalf of the ULFA Executive
Apr 7, 2021 | News
As part of the resolution of a grievance launched by ULFA concerning the impact of COVID-19 on our members’ workloads, we are pleased to announce that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed between ULFA and the Board of Governors. This MOU concerns how Professional Activity Reports (PARs) will be handled throughout the period of the pandemic.
If you submitted a PAR in September 2020, you have a choice to make by April 15, 2021. Read below for details.
Below is an explanation of the options presented to each member. ULFA will also hold information sessions to explain the options this MOU presents to you and answer any questions you may have. Those sessions will be held on:
Thursday, April 8 from 10:00-11:00am.
Friday, April 9 from 1:00-2:00pm.
Monday, April 12 from 3:00-4:00pm.
Please check your email for zoom details.
This MOU contains provisions to cover all of our members and provide each individual with a choice in how to handle their PARs. The MOU affords members the choice to either submit their PAR or not submit their PAR and instead use a previous score (where one exists) in lieu of having their PAR evaluated. PARs that are submitted and evaluated will take the impact of the pandemic on the nature of members’ duties into consideration. The MOU acknowledges that members may suggest atypical weightings for their duties (teaching, service, research) on submitted PARs to accurately reflect what they spent their time on during the pandemic. Such atypical weightings must be provided with an accompanying rationale and will not be unreasonably refused.
For details on how to opt out of the PAR process for (part of) the period 2018-2023, the MOU places ULFA members into five categories:
- Members on biennial review who had to submit a PAR by September 15, 2021;
- Members on biennial review who will submit a PAR by September 15, 2022;
- Members on annual review who have been previously reviewed;
- Members on annual review who have not been previously reviewed; and
- Members who have been previously reviewed and received a score of 0.0 or 0.5.
The options available to members in each of these categories will be explained in turn. For librarians, “University Librarian” should be read in place of “dean” in all cases below.
Please also note that in all cases below, it is the previous PAR score, and not the resulting merit award (if any), that can be carried over. Merit awards may change as a result of changes in the overall assessments of members and the resulting merit calculations.
- Members on biennial review who submitted a PAR by September 15, 2020 for the 2018-2020 review period:
If you currently have a PAR under review, you must decide if you wish to have that PAR reviewed normally (with consideration being given to how the pandemic impacted your duties) by April 15, 2021. Before that date, you may notify your dean in writing if you choose to opt out of the current PAR process. In place of receiving a score on the PAR you submitted, you may instead use your last awarded PAR score.
You will also have the ability to opt out of the PAR process for the 2020-2022 review period and use your previously awarded PAR score instead of submitting a PAR to be evaluated. To make this choice, you must notify your dean in writing by September 15, 2022 (the date by which your PAR would normally be due). These members will return to normal PAR evaluations for the 2022-2024 period and must submit a PAR in September 2024.
Please note that if you elect to have your current PAR reviewed and a score awarded, your choice for the 2020-2022 review period will be to submit another PAR or reuse the score from the 2018-2020 evaluation period. In all cases, members in this category can elect to use their previous PAR score, whether it was awarded in 2019 or 2021.
- Members on biennial review who would submit a PAR by September 15, 2021 for the 2019-2021 review period:
These members may choose to not submit a PAR in September 2021 and instead may inform their dean in writing by September 15, 2021 (the date by which their PAR would normally be due) that they elect to opt out of the PAR process and instead choose to use their previously awarded PAR score.
These members may also choose to opt out of submitting a PAR in September 2023 for the 2021-2023 review period and instead choose to use their previous PAR score (either the score awarded in 2022 or the score awarded in 2020 and used in 2022 if the first option above was taken). Members choosing to do this must notify their dean in writing by September 15, 2023.
These members will return to their normal PAR evaluations for the 2023-2025 review period and must submit a PAR in September 2025.
- Members on annual review who have been previously reviewed
Members on annual review who have been reviewed at least once in the past and have a previous PAR score may elect to use that score in lieu of submitting a PAR for evaluation in 2020, 2021, or 2022. If a member in this category submitted a PAR in September 2020 for review, they must notify their dean in writing by April 15, 2021 if they wish to opt out of the PAR evaluation and use their previous score. In 2021 and 2022, members must notify their dean in writing by September 15 of the given year (the date by which the PAR would normally be due) if they wish to use their previous score.
Please note that members subject to annual review, and who have two previous scores, may elect to use the average of the two previous scores or their single score from their previous evaluation. You must notify your dean of which method of calculation you choose to use. As with the other categories above, if a member in this category elects to be reviewed in 2020 or 2021, their awarded PAR score will count as their most recent previous PAR score for the purposes of opting out of the PAR process in future years (2021 and/or 2022).
Members in this category will return to normal PAR reporting in September 2023.
- Members on annual review who have not been previously reviewed
Members in this category may also choose to not submit a PAR in 2020, 2021, or 2022 in the same way as members in category 3 above, but will instead be able to use a score of 1.0 (non-evaluated normal career progress) in lieu of their previous score. Members in this category will return to normal PAR reporting in September 2023.
- Members who have been previously reviewed and received a score of 0.0 or 0.5.
Members in this category must discuss their situation with their dean and provision will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Another point to note is that other deadlines associated with PAR reviews and the award of career progress and merit are delayed by one month. This means that the date by which your dean must have reviewed your PAR, appeal dates, and the date by which you can expect to see increases to your salary are one month later than usual. Please note that you will still receive your full salary adjustment based on career progress and merit awards, but it may take longer than in other years for that adjustment to appear on your pay.
Lastly, ULFA wants to remind members on probationary appointments of the option to extend their probation (read more about that and the MOU here: https://ulfa.nickpetlock.com/signed-mou-in-response-to-covid-19-updated/). The current MOU regarding PARs is in addition to this previous MOU, so members on probationary appointments can make use of the provisions in both MOUs if they so desire.
The information sessions listed above will include some examples and further explanation of the MOU as well as allow time for questions and discussion. Please join us if you are able. If you cannot make one of the three information sessions, please email officer@ulfa.nickpetlock.com for assistance if you have any questions.
