Dear Colleagues,
It is with disappointment that I respond to the Board Negotiating Team’s decision to file for formal mediation with the Alberta Labour Relations Board.
We did not ask for this. And we know you want a fair agreement sooner rather than later. I am going to explain below why this is an escalation, why it could delay a just settlement, and why this is a problem.
The ULFA Negotiating Team repeatedly noted to the Board team that mediation was unnecessary. The ULFA team offered additional bargaining dates, clarified its positions, and made clear they have been working in good faith toward a negotiated settlement of a new Academic Staff Collective Agreement (ASCA).
It is puzzling and deeply frustrating that the Board would once again try to set us on a path like the one that caused such harm only a short time ago. Board representatives have repeatedly said they suffered reputational damage and enrollment impacts as a result of the last lockout/strike. And yet, here we are—within the same month as the previous bargaining round—facing an escalation that could lead us toward that same outcome.
At first glance, it may appear that the parties are close, and you may ask: Why is the most recent proposal of the Board not acceptable? The answer to that is two-fold: there are still inequities and key mandate items that remain insufficiently addressed; and, the Board’s proposals contain several items which would significantly reduce YOUR rights. I will explain these issues in what follows.
While both parties have tabled offers that include 4 years of 3% cost-of-living adjustments, the ULFA team has yet to hear from the Board team regarding concerns that salary minimums are well below market comparators. This is a situation the Board team had affirmed they would seek movement on from their principals, but so far it remains unaddressed. The Board team’s proposals to keep the salary minimums intact while promoting members to new ranks of the professoriate (teaching stream) would make their salaries even worse in comparison. Furthermore, the Board team proposes to reward many such promotions with salary maximums below the members’ current ones! Also, while the Board team has proposed some improvements to Schedule B Benefits, they are not enough to address sub-par coverage that has persisted for many years.
Those are the issues where the ULFA team still seeks changes to achieve a tentative agreement. These are relatively low cost items for the Board, but would have a significant impact on your academic work. They fall well within the range of settlements that other Alberta public sector employers have shown to be achievable, even under secret provincial directives, and without the need for mediation.
So, why is the Board team seeking mediation? They have indicated at the bargaining table that they are filing for mediation due to concerns that the parties remain far apart on some issues, including ULFA’s resistance to their proposals in Articles 3, 11, and 19. What are those proposals, and why would the ULFA team accept them?
The sections of Article 3 that the Board wishes to delete/amend concern your rights not to cross a picket line established by another union with members delivering University services. This is language ULFA achieved in the 2018-2020 round and is one example where improvements to non-monetary items were made when public sector wage restraint meant the Board’s salary offer was a 0% increase. Now, the Board team seeks to remove this language when workers’ rights are already under full-scale assault by the Alberta government. This is at a time when ULFA members are already demanding action! We have had weekly meetings and rallies since the teachers’ Charter rights were suspended. We surveyed our members, and a super majority of respondents are ready to use their own bargaining position to go on a legal strike simply to support teachers. I fear that the Board seeking an impasse over our members’ Article 3 rights is simply one more example where employers and governments will be emboldened to continue attacking our rights as workers unless we take a stand.
This is not the only article where the Board continues to bring forward proposals that would fundamentally reduce the rights of ULFA members. The Board has repeatedly tried to remove or dilute language that would protect you should you ever face supervision or discipline under Article 19. This has occurred in concert with attempts to remove from Article 11: Rights and Responsibilities language indicating that honest errors or mistakes do not constitute research misconduct. The Board also wants to define research integrity for all research, funded or unfunded, by importing the Tri-Agency Framework for the Responsible Conduct of Research into the ASCA. We know that those of you who receive tri-council funding value the guidance and financial support from the Tri-Agency, but, it is inappropriate to tie all research integrity standards to an external body with which our members do not collectively negotiate. It is unnecessary and unusual. The vast majority of U15 universities have no such language in their academic staff collective agreements. This attempt by the Board comes at a time when federal funding agencies are under increasing scrutiny by authoritarian and anti-EDI parties, including the federal opposition party here in Canada. The ASCA already requires members to follow ‘relevant federal or provincial statutes or regulations’ (emphasis added). These are not peripheral concerns; they speak to fundamental rights, academic integrity, due process, and your ability to do your important work without fear or interference.
After the last strike ended, we were cautioned by colleagues across the country that many associations forced into one strike are often forced into a second before their bargaining unit receives the respect it is due. For much of the time since then, there was reason to believe this would not be the case here. I remain hopeful that it still will not be.
But hope alone is not enough. Your rights are being threatened, and we must respond when necessary.
ULFA has applied for and now has access to all CAUT Defence Fund benefits. Since the 2022 job action, these benefits have increased from $88/day to $96/day, further supplementing our own defence funds. CAUT itself, just last week, passed a unanimous motion condemning the pre-emptive use of the Notwithstanding clause against the Teachers, and in speaking to that motion, I reiterated how crucial it is that academic staff associations defend the rights and freedoms that underpin our profession.
Mediation at this stage is premature, avoidable, and contrary to the commitments we believed we shared to reach an agreement at the table. We know you do not want a strike. We do not want a strike or lockout. But we have always stood—and will always stand—together in defending their rights and the integrity of our work. We will do what is necessary to get a long-overdue fair deal.
We remain ready to return to the bargaining table.
We remain ready to negotiate.
And we remain hopeful that the Board will choose a path that avoids unnecessary escalation.
I will respond further if needed.
— Saurya Das
President, ULFA
On Behalf of the ULFA Executive
