The Board and ULFA negotiating teams met on October 2 and 3, 2025, for their thirtieth and thirty-first bargaining sessions toward a new Academic Staff Collective Agreement (ASCA). At different times over the two days, a total of six ULFA members attended as observers.
In the first half of the October 2 session, the Board team requested discussion of two sets of issues. The first set was on communications directed to the Board about the lack of progress in this bargaining round. These questions echoed issues raised in the Provost’s September 25, 2025, letter to academic staff. The ULFA team responded by outlining the factual basis of the statements made in the Take Action Now communication. When asked if the urging to “get back to the table” may suggest a need for more bargaining dates, the ULFA team said that could potentially be the case, and that it was willing to work with the Board team to find additional dates this semester.
The Board team’s second set of questions largely revisited grounds that were probed in prior sessions. These pertained to specific components of the ULFA team’s proposals on discipline (Article 19), grievance (Article 9), and a new teaching professoriate. Following a brief discussion, the ULFA team agreed to give them further consideration.
In the latter half of the October 2 session, the ULFA team tabled proposals for Articles 4 (applications and exclusions), 5 (recognition), 10 (appointment), and 32 (leaves). Coupled with a letter laying out the basis of the team’s conditional withdrawal of 5.02.2, these proposals accepted the changes in the Board team’s most recent response proposals for the four articles. As Articles 4 and 10 are part of a six-item package, the ULFA team also tabled copies of the other parts that they understand were earlier provisionally agreed: Articles 18 (IP), 20 (termination), 38 (sessionals), and the deletion of Schedule V (consecutive term appointments working group).
The ULFA team responded to two questions from the morning session and stated that it would address the rest the following day. The ULFA team confirmed its view that a stay of proceedings, as per Article 1.02.3 and the October 2023 MOU, would normally involve a grievance in play and needs to be invoked by the grieving party; however, much would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. On the teaching professoriate, the ULFA team confirmed that its proposal does not include study leave for teaching-stream professors. It also noted that its proposal for salary structure parity between research- and teaching-stream professors aligns with the collective agreement provisions of the two universities within the 2014 agreed comparators that have teaching-stream professors.
The parties had some further discussion on comparators. The Board team suggested that the 2014 agreed comparators are not appropriate because three of the five are U15 institutions, but said they believe agreement on comparators is unnecessary. When asked, the Board team stated that its preferred comparators are Trent University, University of Regina, University of Winnipeg, Athabasca University, Ontario Tech University, Lakehead University, and the University of Fraser Valley.
The Board team followed with response proposals for Articles 11 (rights and responsibilities), 21 (assignment of duties), 3 (ASCA amendments) – a retabling of its May 5 proposal, and 28 (promotion). The parties again discussed how members’ research integrity responsibilities in Article 11 might be best aligned with funding agency requirements and how honest errors in research should be addressed under the ASCA.
The ULFA team opened the October 3 session by addressing questions raised the previous day regarding grievances (Article 9) and discipline (Article 19). The team reiterated its views vis-à-vis the interests served in retaining the following: members’ right to decline to meet with senior academic administrators or investigators in meetings concerning supervision or discipline; the concepts of “minor” and “major” discipline and distinctive investigative processes for each; and ULFA’s right to veto the membership of an investigation committee. After more discussion, the Board team expressed the view that their questions about discipline were not answered. The ULFA team agreed to give them further thought.
The last item of the October 3 morning session was the Board team’s presentation of an Article 9 (grievance) response proposal. The Board team said it had not yet finalized its thoughts on stays of procedures in section 9.04 of its proposal, but wanted to share its acceptance of several elements of the ULFA team’s latest proposal on Article 9.
The ULFA team began the October 3 afternoon session by restating its positions on the interests served by the right of Members to decline supervisory/discipline meetings and again distinguishing between “minor” and “major” discipline. The ULFA team reviewed its Article 19 proposal of September 3 to highlight two aspects. One is a new provision for a preliminary review to gather the facts at the start of a potential disciplinary case. The other is that the two kinds of investigations that may lead to discipline for a member do not necessarily require duplication of investigative work if two separate concerns arise about the conduct of a member and the concerns are factually related. The team also noted that if a member is advised to meet with the dean or senior academic administrator but chooses not to, the administrator is still able to carry out their responsibilities in the matter.
The Board team next asked for a discussion of its proposal to delegate tenure and rank recommendations to search committees for senior academic administrator appointments in Article 25 (personnel committees). The Board team said it has heard from ULFA members and others who have served on such committees that involving STP committees is unnecessary and cumbersome. It also stated that it is fairly common at other institutions not to involve STP committees in such cases. The ULFA team noted it sought input from members before tabling its response proposal of March 19, 2025, which reflects what the team heard. The Board team said it is interested in an expedited process that balances confidentiality and a reasonable timeline and is functional and pragmatic. The ULFA team said it would reflect on the matter.
Regarding the ULFA team’s Article 5 letter of the previous day, the Board team said it would respond in writing to ensure both parties are clear on how and when music studio teachers will become ULFA members.
The final topic discussed was the Board team’s announcement that “it’s moving day,” meaning that the team believes it can now prepare a complete proposal package inclusive of all outstanding items. The Board team proposed to present its complete package on October 24, the second of the two remaining scheduled October bargaining dates, because the ULFA team’s teaching schedules on October 23 would be limited to two relatively small chunks (as they were on October 2, 2025). The Board team proposed to cancel bargaining on October 23, which it would use to finalize the proposal package, and stated its hope is to finalize an MOU on a tentative new ASCA on November 12 or 14, the two currently agreed-upon bargaining dates for next month. The ULFA team agreed to cancel the October 23 bargaining date and to meet as scheduled on October 24.Currently, the remaining scheduled Fall 2025 negotiation dates are October 24, November 12 and 14, and December 11 and 12. A summary of the progress of items opened in this round of bargaining is available here.
