Dear Colleagues, 

The tenor of bargaining continued to intensify at our February 27 meeting with the Employer, with AASUA outright rejecting the Employer’s revised monetary proposal that would seek to divide us as a membership. At that meeting, the Employer also expressed frustration as AASUA continues to tenaciously retable proposals the Employer has so far rejected, such as our proposal for a new article aimed at contracting out and artificial intelligence issues now emerging at the university. However, AASUA remains adamant these proposals address issues anticipated to greatly impact our members, and as such, we continue to insist the Employer must engage with them. 

AASUA and the Employer are headed into in-person, informal mediation on March 25-27 with mediator Mark Asbell, K.C. There will be no further joint meetings between the AASUA and the Employer between now and the date of the informal mediation. For a more detailed explanation of our bargaining timeline and its possible variations, please see my previous bargaining update.

The following is a high-level summary of the topics discussed at the February 27 joint meeting:

  • AASUA presented a revised monetary proposal that included a market adjustment of 5% applied immediately (retro-actively to July 1, 2024) to all members’ compensation. The two-year contract AASUA is now proposing would also include a 5% across-the-board (ATB) salary increase in the first year, and a 5% ATB increase again in the second year (for a total salary increase of 15% over the two year term). In presenting this proposal, AASUA’s Lead Negotiator Cherie Klassen highlighted how inflation in Alberta was approximately 33% higher in the last year than elsewhere in Canada (based on recent Consumer Price Index data). This factor, in addition to the knowledge that the U of A’s average faculty salaries have fallen way behind our national top-5 comparators, means this substantial salary increase is needed to even bring the U of A back to the middle of the pack with respect to our U15 comparator universities.  
  • AASUA retabled its other monetary proposals that were previously rejected by the Employer, including proposals to:
    • Add two additional steps for all salary scales that are currently capped to adequately recognize the achievements and excellent work of academic staff;
    • Abolish the two-tiered salary system within Academic Teaching Staff (ATS) that was very reluctantly agreed to in the last round of bargaining, and to transition the ATS salary scale to a more equitable positioning with the Faculty Service Officer (FSO) constituency;
    • Maintain the current academic benefits plan’s coverage and ensure its adequate funding, while expanding it to include all AASUA members that hold at least a 0.4 full-time-equivalent (FTE) appointment;
    • Expand Professional Expense Reimbursement to all part-time members of the Association, pro-rated to their FTE; and
    • Ensure that the pension benefit associated with the Academic Supplementary Retirement Plan is consistent with similar plans at, for example, the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia.  
  • AASUA responded to the Employer’s Article 11 patent proposal, which included a proposed revenue sharing model where the Employer would claim one third of net revenue generated by Patentable Intellectual Property (PIP) on an indefinite basis, even when the Employer is not involved in the patenting process. The Employer’s proposed model would continue to stifle innovation at the university by disincentivizing large scale private investment in the PIP developed by our members. In contrast, aiming to cultivate the possibility for transformational innovation at our university when members wish to patent PIP without university involvement, AASUA is proposing that a one-time payment of $75,000 would be made to the Employer only if and when the net income generated by the PIP reaches $500,000 within the first five years of commercialization. 
  • You will recall how following a disagreement on removing the current Collective Agreement allowance for the use of student surveys for the evaluation of teaching and increment determination, AASUA and the Employer have tentatively agreed to take this issue to arbitration to decide whether this practice is unlawful due to the well-documented discriminatory effect of these surveys. The Employer responded to the AASUA’s proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by materially reframing the question that would be posed to the arbitrator appointed to hear the dispute. AASUA was disappointed and surprised to see the Employer propose MOU language that would ask an arbitrator to determine whether the current Collective Agreement provision(s) that refer to student surveys on its face is discriminatory, rather than the whether the application of the language in real life results in a discriminatory effect. The AASUA rejects the approach the Employer proposes as the law is clear: a policy (or contractual language) that appears neutral on its face but has a discriminatory impact is unlawful under human rights legislation in Canada. With respect, the Employer’s proposal is hollow, and contrary to established jurisprudence. 

Together we are stronger

As the temperature at the bargaining table rises, it is critical that the AASUA membership collectively demonstrate to the Employer that it stands behind our bargaining team as we persist in our demands for a fair and equitable agreement, and for a Collective Agreement that sees the membership’s issues with workload and competitive compensation adequately addressed. Please make every effort to attend the rally tomorrow, March 5 at noon to show your support for our bargaining team and their continued efforts to negotiate such a contract. 

Please RSVP to the rally here: https://actionnetwork.org/events/rally-one-year-of-bargaining

I look forward to seeing you at the rally! 

Sincerely, 

Gordon Swaters
AASUA President