Last week, the bargaining team for the University of Lethbridge board of governors emailed members of the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association with an update regarding contract negotiations.
The most recent collective agreement for ULFA members expired in June 2024, nearly a year and a half ago.
It has been over 600 days since ULFA’s bargaining team issued their notice to commence collective bargaining to the U of L board of governors.
In the email, which I have included at the end of the letter, the board’s bargaining team indicates that “there has been significant progress in negotiations . . . over the last few bargaining sessions”.
The two parties have each presented “full packages and have been able to narrow down the outstanding issues” to “only a few issues”.
As a result, it seems that the bulk of a new collective agreement has been tentatively agreed to by both parties, that it “is within the parties’ grasp”.
According to the email, nearly 20 other postsecondary institutions have already settled their collective agreements.
In an effort to conclude “this round of bargaining as effectively and efficiently as possible”, the board’s bargaining team requested formal mediation. They highlight that Mount Royal University and the University of Alberta also used mediation to reach their most recent agreements.
ULFA is disappointed with this decision.
According to Saurya Das, ULFA’s president, this was not something ULFa had asked for. ULFA’s negotiating team called this an escalation, said it was problematic, and was concerned it could delay “a just settlement”.
Das claims that their negotiating team “offered additional bargaining dates, clarified its positions, and made clear they have been working in good faith toward a negotiated settlement”.
One reason ULFA is apprehensive about mediation is that it is repeating the process seen in bargaining for the last collective agreement, a process which ultimately led to a strike.
One source of disagreement, unsurprisingly, is salaries. Both parties want to increase salaries, but the U of L wants a smaller increase than ULFA had proposed.
For example, here are both proposals for the first year of the new agreement. These are minimums only.
| Old | ULFA | U of L | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assistant professor/Librarian II | $79,522 | $85,496 | $81,506 |
| Associate professor/Librarian III | $96,562 | $102,773 | $98,972 |
| Professor/Librarian IV | $113,603 | $123,542 | $116,437 |
| Assistant teaching professor* | — | $89,496 | $66,950 |
| Associate teaching professor* | — | $102,773 | $72,100 |
| Teaching professor* | — | $123,542 | $77,250 |
| Instructor/Academic assistant I | $54,736 | $61,349 | $60,000 |
| Instructor/Academic assistant II | $59,900 | $70,517 | $61,394 |
| Instructor/Academic assistant III | $65,064 | $85,496 | $66,409 |
| Sessional lecturer I** | $6,709 | $6,910 | $6,910 |
| Sessional lecturer II** | $7,020 | $7,231 | $7,231 |
** These are per course stipends, not annual salaries
As you can see, the biggest gaps are in the salaries for the new teaching professor categories, which are tens of thousands of dollars in difference.
The U of L thinks the assistant teaching professors should be making a little more than $500 a year above what the highest level of academic assistants would be making.
In contrast, ULFA wants that difference to be $4,000, a significant difference.
Now, let us compare the final year salaries from each proposal.
| ULFA | U of L | |
|---|---|---|
| Assistant professor/Librarian II | $93,424 | $89,064 |
| Associate professor/Librarian III | $112,303 | $108,149 |
| Professor/Librarian IV | $134,998 | $127,234 |
| Assistant teaching professor* | $93,424 | $73,159 |
| Associate teaching professor* | $112,303 | $78,786 |
| Teaching professor* | $134,998 | $84,414 |
| Instructor/Academic assistant I | $67,038 | $65,564 |
| Instructor/Academic assistant II | $77,056 | $67,141 |
| Instructor/Academic assistant III | $93,424 | $72,567 |
| Sessional lecturer I** | $7,551 | $7,551 |
| Sessional lecturer II** | $7,901 | $7,901 |
** These are per course stipends, not annual salaries
The teaching professors are wildly out of sync. Assistant teaching professors are off by more than $20,000, associate teaching professors are over $30,000 apart, and the difference between full teaching professors proposals is more than $50,000.
These minimums are a sticking point for ULFA. Das said the ULFA negotiating team has pointed out that the minimums “are well below market comparators” and that the board of governor’s team “had affirmed they would seek movement on from their principals”.
Plus, in line with what I pointed out with the new teaching stream positions, ULFA worries that the promotion of their members to these ranks “would make their salaries even worse” than those at comparator institutions.
There are a couple of other notable issues in the proposals that I wanted to highlight.
For example, the board of governor’s bargaining team wanted to remove several sections from Article 3, which covers strikes and lockouts.
3.05.4 Members have the right not to cross a picket line established by another certified bargaining agent with members delivering University services at the University in consequence of job action by that other bargaining agent and shall not be in breach of this Collective Agreement.
3.05.6 Members who are or anticipate being unable to carry out scheduled duties as a result of exercising their right under Article 3.05.4 shall advise their Dean as early as reasonably possible that they will not be available for the scheduled duties.
3.05.7 Members who refuse to carry out scheduled duties through the exercise of their rights under Article 3.05.4 shall be assessed a penalty equivalent to 1/252 of their annual salary in lieu of other discipline for each day on which they refuse to carry out such
duties.3.05.8 The President may waive the penalty in Article 3.05.7.
They also want to change section 3.05.5 from this:
Members who choose to exercise their rights under Article 3.05.4 shall not be subject to disciplinary action nor loss of pay or other rights and benefits provided by this collective agreement so long as they carry out all scheduled duties, including those that require the presence of the Member on campus.
to this:
Members who choose not to cross a picket line involving another University of Lethbridge bargaining unit shall not be subject to disciplinary action nor loss of pay or other rights and benefits provided by this collective agreement so long as they carry out all scheduled duties, including those that require the presence of the Member on campus. Members may not alter the modality of providing instruction, permanently or temporarily, in response to a strike or lockout of another bargaining unit at the University.
This change, if implemented, could deter U of L faculty from striking in solidarity with other striking workers. Naturally, this something ULFA opposes.
In fact, ULFA says that, when surveyed, “a super majority of respondents are ready to use their own bargaining position to go on a legal strike simply to support teachers” in the primary and secondary education sector.
As well, the board of government has proposed significant changes to section 11.03.3.a.iii, which defines “gross misconduct in scholarly/creative activity”.
They want to remove definition A
fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, but not factors intrinsic to the process of scholarly/creative activity, such as honest error, conflicting data or differences in interpretation or assessment of data, or of experimental design
And they want to change section B from this:
significant failure to comply with relevant federal or provincial statutes or regulations; or national or international standards for the protection of investigators, human subjects, or the health and safety of the public, or for the welfare of animals; or significant failure to meet other legal requirements that relate to the conduct of scholarly/creative activity
to just this
failure to comply with the requirements of the Tri Agency Framework for the Responsible Conduct of Research or any successor documents
ULFA sees this as much too restrictive and proposed a small modification to the current wording.
significant failure to comply with applicable federal or provincial funding agency requirements, statutes or regulations; or national or international standards for the protection of investigators, human subjects, or the health and safety of the public, or for the welfare of animals; or significant failure to meet other legal requirements that relate to the conduct of scholarly/creative activity
They feel this slight change should cover the tri-agency research integrity policy that the board of governors wanted to introduce.
It will be interesting to see what the mediator recommends on these two outstanding issues and wages, especially the new teaching professor positions.
