CAFA campaign opposes Bill 18 interference in research grants

On April 10, the Alberta government introduced Bill 18, the Provincial Priorities Act. Bill 18 makes all federal funding agreements subject to provincial approval, including Tri-Council grants (Alberta’s 1800 grants total about $500 million). The exact process by which provincial approval is obtained will be determined later, through regulation.

Bill 18 threatens the academic freedom of researchers by allowing provincial politicians to decide which grants will be accepted. Bill 18 is also likely to increase red tape, reduce grant funding, and make Alberta less able to attract and retain scholars.

On April 18, Premier Danielle Smith told CBC (at 11:00) that her goal was to ensure “all people from all political perspectives are able to engage in a robust debate and have a robust research agenda. … If we did truly have balance in universities, then we would see that we would have just as many conservative commentators as we do liberal commentators.”

There appears to be no factual basis for the allegation the Tri-Council grants are politicized. Subsequently, the Minister of Advanced Education Rajan Sawhney asserted Bill 18 was necessary so the province could know what funding was being received. This information is publicly available online.

In the absence of an elected Advocacy Lead, AUFA has been working with the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations (CAFA) as well as the Canadian Association of University Teacher (CAUT) and its member associations to seek the removal of universities from the ambit of Bill 18.

CAFA Press Release (April 12)

CAUT Statement (April 17)

On May 13, representatives of Alberta faculty associations met with Minister Sawhney and requested the exemption of post-secondary institutions from the ambit of Bill 18. Engagement Co-Lead Shandip Saha represented AUFA at this meeting.

The Minister declined this request and suggested she was in favour of exempting Tri-Council funding from review through Ministerial exemption after Bill 18 has been passed. From a practical perspective, it is hard to fathom why post-secondaries would be included within the ambit of Bill 18 if the plan is to simply turn around and subsequently exclude the vast majority of federal funding.

Bill 18 makes the most sense when viewed through a political lens. The Premier is likely trying to maintain her political support within the UCP by both picking a fight with the federal government and micromanaging the research of “liberal” academics. She is also concentrating power: Bill 18 gives her another weapon to deploy against universities and individual academics in response, for example, to research critical of the UCP and its policies.

Subsequent to this meeting, CAFA has launched a campaign to pressure Minister Sawhney to exclude post-secondary institutions from Bill 18. Please review the campaign and participant in it.

Bob Barnetson

AUFA President

Shandip Saha

Engagement Co-lead

AUFA statement on Alberta's proposed anti-trans legislation

The Athabasca University Faculty Association condemns the recent policy proposals by the Alberta government which is a direct attack on the rights of Two-Spirit, transgender, non-binary, and gender non-confirming (2STNBGC) youths. As a union, our duty is a commitment to equity for all members, which includes fairness and justice in the way they are treated. As a faculty association, we are dedicated to the intellectual pursuit and the protection of academic freedom.

The recent policy proposals use the guise of parental rights to rob youths of their own right to live their lives peacefully and safely. It seeks to out people without their permission, deny proven medical treatments like puberty blockers, and exclude youths from engaging in healthy community activities like sports and athletics. It is also anti-intellectual, erasing decades of academic work to instead embrace a current moral panic, and hide this attempted social erasure behind a false veneer of concern. The creation and enforcement of these laws has encouraged violence against 2STNBGC youths, most recently in the death of Nex Benedict, who died at the hands of classmates after similar laws were proposed in Oklahoma.   

The Alberta government is our employer, and it is attacking our children.

AUFA calls upon all interested members to sign the Trans Action Alberta petition, write their political leaders to express their condemnation of these policies, and to attend rallies in their communities. In addition, please watch our provincial organization CAFA, for their forthcoming statement.

Additional links:

Trans Rights Yeg for attending rallies in Edmonton.

Queer Citizens United for attending rallies in Calgary.

Alberta Federation Labour statement.

Write your Members of the Legislative Assembly:

Danielle Smith, Premier of Alberta

Demetrios Nicolaides, Minister of Education

Glenn Van Dijken, Member of the Legislative Assembly for Athabasca-Westlock-Barrhead

Know your contract: Discipline

Over the past twelve months, there have been 12 disciplinary investigations of AUFA members under Article 7 of the collective agreement. In past years, there were between 1 and 3 such investigations. This seeming increase is largely the result of Human Resources moving from informal processes to more formal ones. Although formal investigations are nerve-wracking, they ensure that investigations follow the rules in our Collective Agreement. 

The above chart breaks down status of discipline cases that were active in the past year. Of the twelve cases over this past year, three have resulted in discipline thus far.

Investigation: Article 7.3

When the employer wishes to investigate a potential problem with an AUFA member, they must follow the rules set out in Article 7 to conduct the investigation. It is up to HR to determine what is worthy of investigation or not. If HR wishes to commence an investigation they must:

• Inform the AUFA Executive Director.

• Inform the member, and ensure they understand their right to union representation.

To conduct the investigation, HR will use either an HR officer, or hire an external contractor. An initial meeting is held to discuss the allegations with the member with a union representative present. The investigator will then normally conduct interviews with affected parties within the workplace and gather evidence to determine what happened. 

During the investigative process, Human Resources may elect to place a member on paid leave. This typically occurs only with with more serious allegations. It is important to understand that members subject to this process have not been found guilty of anything, and they are not being “disciplined” (even if the investigation may feel that way). Rather, the employer is investigating a potential problem, and they have to conduct the investigation to find out if the problem is real.  

Discipline: Article 7.5

At the conclusion of an investigation, Human Resources will receive a report from the investigator, and decide whether to proceed or not with imposing discipline. If Human Resources determines that corrective discipline is necessary, Article 7.5 allows the employer to do one of the following:

• A written warning on the employee’s file.

• Denial of certain rights.

• Suspension with pay.

• Suspension without pay.

• Termination with cause.

The employer normally imposes progressive discipline, where initial discipline is a milder form and, if the misbehaviour persists, corrective actions become increasingly severe. If there is a very serious infraction, however, the employer may issue suspension or termination on a first offence.

If the employer decides discipline is not warranted, the investigation concludes without discipline.

Appeal: Article 7.7

Members have a right to request the withdrawal of discipline from the University President. If the President declines (which they have always done), the member can then request an appeal.

AUFA has strong appeal language which sends disciplinary decisions to a panel of three people. AUFA choses one, AU choses the other, and the third is elected by the two panel members. The panel does not have to be internal, allowing either side to choose legal counsel for an appeal. Per our contract, the employer must pay for the panel, which may be extremely expensive for the employer.  

Members who were placed on leave during an investigation may, at the employer’s discretion, remain that way until an appeal is heard. The penalties of termination and suspension without pay are held in abeyance until the appeal is complete and a decision rendered. Appeal results that follow process properly are binding.

Analysis

Investigations have been informally referred to as “disciplines” in the past, which can create unnecessary worry for affected members. Discipline only takes place after an investigation, if the employer decides to impose one of the penalties set out in Article 7.5. Most investigations do not result in discipline. It is important to understand that if you are under investigation, you are not being punished by the employer.

AUFA has received several questions from members concerned that disciplinary cases may be disproportionately affecting racialized members. Although we do not have equity data on our membership to compare the cases to the total population, we’ve observed the following:

• 75% of Article 7 cases affected white members. This is inclusive of both investigations and disciplines.

• The remaining 25% were for members who were Black, Indigenous, or people of colour.

• Of the three cases that resulted in discipline (one was withdrawn), two of the three affected members are white.  

More reports to the membership on cases in the grievance file will be forthcoming with additional contract analysis in the coming months. 

Dave Powell

Grievance Lead