Bargaining Bulletin #6: Negotiations Resume

Dear colleagues, we hope your semester is starting off well.

On 18 September we resumed negotiations with the University administration to renew our Collective Agreement (CA). This followed a break over the summer during which the administration was onboarding new members of their team, including a new spokesperson.

Short version: There is a lot of bargaining still left to do, but we have an opportunity to make significant improvements, and to obtain a boost to the CapU budget in the process (along with increasing faculty salaries 3% per year, effective from April 2025 onwards). We are committed to doing all we can to reach a deal before the end of 2026.

We expressed concern at the start of the meeting about the lack of meaningful response from the administration to many CFA proposals. Since April, we have repeatedly heard “we will get back to you” from the administration on specific proposals, without receiving substantive responses or counter-proposals. Then at the start of June the administration’s lead negotiator told us he was leaving CapU for a new job. We agreed to cancel the bargaining dates we had scheduled for the rest of June—on the understanding that the administration would appoint a new spokesperson and devote the original June dates + July and August to preparing responses to the CFA’s proposals.

The bad news is that the administration does not yet have the responses we have been asking for. This has left the CFA committee feeling that we have not moved beyond where we were in late April. 

The good news is that our meeting on 18 September felt more productive than the meetings last spring. We made some progress in that meeting with new admin spokesperson Stephanie Kellar (the admin’s Senior Director of Labour Relations) and the renewed admin committee. This gives us hope that we can reach a good agreement this fall.

The other good news is what we now know the government’s financial mandate. In addition to a 3% annual raise in salary for all faculty, there is a significant budget increase available to the University. If the parties reach an agreement on terms the government sees as improvements to CapU, the government will provide additional funding that ratchets up to an added $1,248,000 per year in 2028/29. That amount would then remain a permanent part of the University’s funding in future years.

That is a considerable amount of money, enough to make dramatic improvements to our working conditions: improving pay for non-regular faculty and lab supervisors/instructional associates; retirement incentives; updating our benefits plan; and other CFA proposals that the administration sees as “cost items.”

The agenda for 18 September included a review of several key proposals that the CFA identified ahead of time as ones the parties should be able to agree on, to build momentum. These included:

1. The CFA’s draft of a joint proposal to the B.C. government to unlock that additional $1.25 million dollars in annual funding. We believe our draft is a well-developed outline of how the CFA’s bargaining proposals, in combination with proposals from the administration, address the government’s priorities. The University administration indicated that they are interested in submitting a joint proposal on this matter and committed to providing a response to the CFA for our next meeting, on 2 October.
   

2. The CFA then reviewed a number of the proposals on which we have been awaiting promised responses from the administration. We focused explicitly on:
   

   1. Benefits proposals – which includes updating the dollar amounts on our plan, most which are unchanged in 31 years, along with improvements to our life insurance, psychological care and counselling, paramedical services, optometry, and others. The administration agreed to a targeted side-table meeting on Sept 25 to work with the bargaining committee at costing the proposal and approaching Canada Life for needed data. That meeting was productive, and we hope the administration will send the data requests to Canada Life soon.
      

   2. We discussed the University administration’s proposed “troubleshooter” mechanism for grievance handling – which would give the CFA and admin a cost-saving alternative to full  arbitration of the many active grievances that are taking too long to resolve. We requested costing on how much this proposal would save the administration in legal fees and how money saved could be costed against the bargaining mandate. The administration argues that this cost savings should not be taken into account alongside the added costs of things like benefits improvements. We are still discussing this.
      

   3. Perhaps the most encouraging part of the meeting was that we were able to work together with the administration at the table to amend the wording of a CFA regularization proposal, reaching tentative agreement on this update to the CA. The proposal codifies in the CA the right of regular faculty to top-up their commitment level based on workload across the whole academic year, not just the best two terms. In exchange for exercising this option, the member would have to waive the right to have their commitment level met in two terms. It was a productive discussion. We were able to come to agreement on the language, subject to the employer receiving approval from the Post-Secondary Employers’ Association (PSEA), the government body that oversees our sector.
      

   4. We discussed the CFA’s counter to the administration’s proposal of an Equity, Diversity and Inclusion committee. We came close to full agreement on the language of the proposal but hit a snag on the CFA’s proposal to include section release for committee members–especially members from equity-deserving groups, to enable their participation. The administration was willing to look at costing this with us before approving it.
      

   5. We discussed our proposal on a committee to review evaluation procedures and all factors that affect teaching at the University holistically, and then revise the process in article 11.5 of our CA. We explained again that this proposal complements the new Senate Teaching and Learning subcommittee on evaluation of courses and programs, but has a different focus. We remain hopeful that the administration will accept this proposal.
      

We are looking forward to a productive discussion at our next meeting, this Friday, 2 October, and have now scheduled meetings on every Friday in October and November. Our goal is to work in between meetings to get proposals ready for agreement, and then to work out the final details for groups of proposals in the Friday meetings.

We will update you regularly as the meetings proceed.

In solidarity,
CFA bargaining committee

Doug Alards-Tomalin, Dwayne Beaver, Michael Begg, Chelsea Bell Eady, Iris Gordon, Ferdos Jamali, and FPSE advisors Monica Staff and Robin Wylie

Bargaining bulletin #5: Some Progress On Non-Monetary Issues and Enhanced Mandate Proposal

Dear Colleagues, the bargaining committee apologizes for the delay between bulletins - this is largely because we wanted to provide a more extensive bulletin covering some of the bigger themes of our last several meetings, which have been ongoing throughout the spring term. With new senior administrators coming on board, we hope this will have a productive impact on the bargaining context and look forward to hearing substantive responses from administration to our proposals in June. Here is some of what has happened since our last bulletin: 

Financial Updates

• The general wage increase (established by talks with BCGEU and Teachers’ Federation) is 3% in each year of the agreement’s 4-year term. We are currently in year 1.

• The Union and administration are jointly working on a proposal to gain additional government funding to cover improvements to the agreement that extend beyond general wages (e.g., for benefits, better scale placement for NREGs). Initially the government was offering CapU an annual amount equal to 0.4% of “total faculty salary.” We are close to unlocking additional funding equal to 1.6%. If we can reach agreement, this could result in an amount equal to 2% of faculty annual salary added to the University’s annual budget by year 4.This is funding we want to unlock for proposals that substantially directly address improvements to our working conditions.

• The Union has requested costing information from Administration on benefits, NREG placement improvements, and other CFA proposals, so we can identify which changes fit within the 2% funding envelope.

Grievance Process Improvements

• The parties agreed on a new “troubleshooter” process for handling grievances, that is intended to resolve grievances that are at impasse through third-party mediation.

Key Bargaining Issues

• Decolonization proposal: Discussions continue. Administration has opposed the Union’s initial proposal as overlapping with existing Indigenization, Decolonization and Reconciliation initiatives. We are working on a response.

• Vacation banking: The Union proposed more flexibility for vacation use, and financial compensation when vacation cannot be taken. Administration has committed to providing a response.

• “Appropriate Administrator” language: The Union rejected administration’s proposal to replace “Appropriate Dean,” arguing it weakens academic governance.

• Union meeting block: Administration wants to move the Tuesday 11:30 meeting block; the Union has requested more information.

• Two consecutive days off: The Union rejected the administration's proposal to remove this requirement from the Collective Agreement.

• EDI joint committee: Both parties are in agreement on a committee that would identify EDI improvements for future bargaining rounds. The Union has indicated that the committee’s scope should extend beyond an assessment of the existing collective agreement to operations as a whole.

Evaluation

• Administration and the Union are discussing a joint committee that would review evaluations. Administration has so far opposed this proposal, but discussions are continuing.

Other Proposals Tabled

The Union also raised:

• Compensation for research and scholarship work and clarification on Academic Freedom

• Multi-location travel compensation clarification

• Salary equity, pertaining to NREG, PMI’s and Lab Supervisors

• COLA protections for benefits (to ensure Benefits doesn’t lose value over time)

• Improved financial exigency protections

• Improvements to existing paramedical services under flexible benefits plan.

Our next bargaining meeting is set for May 29, and will focus on our regularization proposals and discussion of the Union and administration’s proposals on EDI; with additional meetings running into June.

In Solidarity,

CFA Bargaining Team

Bargaining Bulletin #4: Progress on some proposals but uncertainty about financial mandate

Dear colleagues,

Your bargaining committee met the administration on Friday, 13 February, for 3 hours. We worked on 5 CFA proposals and 3 from the administration, and reached tentative agreement on two minor proposals. However, the administration is still unwilling to talk about any CFA proposal that it sees as “cost items”—the ones that would affect its budget.

One surprise on Friday was that the administration’s committee had not booked negotiation dates beyond 13 February. This caught our committee by surprise, since our committee had booked every second Friday from now through June. The good news is that we are working with the administration to schedule weekly meetings starting on 27 March and going to the end of June. The CFA is awaiting admin's agreement to this schedule.

The next scheduled meeting is on Friday, 27 March, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Discussion of “non-cost items”

We made some progress on the proposals listed below. We are, however, still waiting for substantive responses from the administration on most of the proposals we discussed last Friday. And the two proposals on which we have tentative agreement are not really new— they simply codify existing rules. So there is much work to do. 

Details on the proposals discussed on 13 February

Here are some specific details—with apologies for the inevitable union-geeky jargon. We will go through these proposals more closely with area stewards during their monthly meeting on Tuesday, 24 February. We will also check in with coordinators, chairs, and convenors in the separate “3Cs” meeting that day (both are during the CFA meeting block next week, 11:30 to 1 ).

• Change from monthly to semi-monthly pay (though this is already a statutory obligation for the administration, and has been since May 2019)

• Incorporate the right of regular faculty to “top up” their commitment level based on workload across all three terms into the body of the Collective Agreement

• Establish a joint faculty-admin committee to review our evaluation processes holistically (looking at how we gather and act on feedback about individual instructors, courses and programs, and university systems that affect teaching and learning)

• Establish a joint committee on reconciliation and decolonization (joint with reps from CFA, MoveUP, CSU, admin, and the Nations on whose territories we work—similar to a standing committee that met from the mid 2000s until it was disbanded in 2019)

• A fast-track “troubleshooter” arbitration process for grievances (aiming to break through the logjam of disputes about, for example, regularization) 

We don’t want to over-promise on the last three proposals. The administration seemed reluctant to entertain the idea of a holistic approach to reviewing the evaluation process, and at the moment opposes the establishment of a joint committee on decolonization. We pushed back on both points, and have shared with the admin team that their objection to the joint committee on decolonization uses language that strikes us as highly colonial. We expect a response at the next bargaining meeting, and are hopeful that they will change their minds. 

It was actually the administration that proposed the troubleshooter in this round, though their troubleshooter proposal uses the language the CFA prepared in 2022 as part of the settlement of grievances about directors or AVPs being hired to play the role of deans for some departments. The admin’s proposal is to use the troubleshooter only where both parties agree to use it, which would give the admin a veto on its use for any particular dispute. The CFA has proposed that we use it for all grievances on a pilot-project basis for 3 years, after which we could discontinue it if it does not work. We are awaiting their response. 

The CFA also responded to two proposals from the administration, noting that there is no apparent need to amend the Collective Agreement as they have proposed. We see the concerns they have raised as being easily addressed through improved HR procedures. These admin proposals were about:

• Timing of scale placement (the admin does not want to make these retroactive to the term in which the placement currently take effect; instead they want the scale placement to start in the term in which they receive all the relevant scale-placement information from the member), and

• Timing of new regular appointments (the admin wanted to change the target date for confirming appointments from 31 May to 30 April, even though the appointments don’t take effect until 1 September) 

We hope this information is useful to you. The main theme is that we remain hopeful that we can achieve some good things in this round, but it is too early to say, especially when it comes to financial items.

We will update you as we approach the next meeting, on 27 March 2026.

In solidarity,

Your bargaining team,

Doug Alards-Tomalin, Dwayne Beaver, Michael Begg, Chelsea Bell Eady, Iris Gordon, Ferdos Jamali, Reini Klein, and FPSE representatives Monica Staff and Robin Wylie

Bargaining Bulletin #3: Initial talks begin

Dear members, 

Last Friday, 30 January we (your bargaining team) met with the administration’s bargaining team for the first time since we initially exchanged proposals on 16 January. 

In this meeting we began to set the tone for bargaining on “non-monetary” proposals (see below for what that means). It was a positive meeting, but still exploratory. We have only just begun to get into the substance of the proposals. 

We started with responses to the admin team’s questions about CFA proposals. Then we began negotiation of two specific proposals: to (1) establish a joint committee to study our evaluation process and make recommendations for improvements (2) create a “troubleshooter” grievance process that has the potential to dramatically speed up dispute resolution and break the longstanding stalemate on dozens or active disputes between faculty and the administration.

Our next meeting is on 13 February (yes, a Friday the 13th!). 

At that meeting the CFA team will pursue agreement on the two proposals above. We also want to begin discussion of the CFA’s proposals on decolonization, justice, equity, diversity and inclusiveness. Our goal is to build momentum by reaching agreement in these areas, before we turn to more contentious subjects like regularization. And, once the admin team has its financial mandate from the B.C. government, we will then move on to benefits improvements, fair pay for non-regulars, and other cost items.

That is our update for now, aside from the background (“bargaining 101-ish”) notes below. We are providing a more detailed briefing, with copies of the actual proposals from both sides of the tale, to your area stewards, for discussion with them. For now we are not publishing all the proposals on the website, because we want to make sure that the area stewards are familiar with the details, and can discuss them with you.

Some background: monetary vs. non-monetary, and financial mandate

We realize “non-monetary proposals” is bargaining jargon. The term means proposals that would change articles of the Collective Agreement without affecting the University’s expenses. (Speaking of the Collective Agreement, we finally have a signed version of the current complete Agreement, attached here.) Whereas monetary proposals, a.k.a. “Cost items” would either increase or decrease the University’s net expenses. Examples:

• Increasing the paramedical coverage from $750 per service to $1,500 per service – monetary

• Simplifying the regularization process – non-monetary

The admin bargaining committee is not yet willing to discuss monetary proposals, or even to ask questions about them. This is because the B.C. government is still determining how much money to provide to universities and colleges for negotiating–the “financial mandate” for negotiations. We had expected the government to have issued this financial mandate by now, but after the BCGEU negotiations secured more funding than other sectors (health care, teachers) had obtained in their negotiations, the government is reviewing its financial mandate across the public sector.

It is frustrating to not be able to talk about all of our proposals yet. However, the CFA’s list of proposals is extensive, and more than half are non-monetary. (We have 49 proposals, of which 34 are entirely or mostly non-monetary, and 15 are cost items.) At the start of the meeting, the administration commented on the number and depth of the CFA proposals, which is why we spent most of last Friday’s meeting answering their questions.

Many of the admin’s questions were practical ones about the way the Collective Agreement works. We think it was helpful to go through their questions in depth, since the conversation enabled us to ensure all the members of both committees have a shared understanding of how our CA works. This was especially valuable given that the admin’s bargaining team includes representatives from the B.C. government (the “Post-Secondary Employers’ Association”), who of course are not very familiar with our CA.

We are hoping that meeting will be a springboard into more substantive negotiation on Friday the 13th of February. And that our briefing notes to area stewards will be a springboard for discussions among faculty about this round of bargaining.

Onward and upward, in solidarity,

The Bargaining Team

Doug Alards-Tomalin, Dwayne Beaver, Michael Begg, Chelsea Bell Eady, Iris Gordon, Ferdos Jamali, Reini Klein, and FPSE representatives Monica Staff and Robin Wylie

Bargaining Bulletin #2: Proposals exchanged

Dear colleagues: Last Friday, your bargaining committee met with the administration to exchange bargaining proposals.

Talks start with a positive tone

As we reviewed with you in general meetings last fall, our proposals are focused on developing and supporting faculty and the University. We made 59 proposals in total. These include paid work for research and scholarship, improved pay and benefits, simplified regularization, improvements to the evaluation process, and a University-wide process for decolonization.

We were pleased with the tenor of the meeting, with the administration explicitly affirming their intention to bargain with us at the table in a collaborative manner as we move toward “substantive bargaining” about specific proposals in the exchanged proposal packages, which will begin on 30 January 2026.

We will discuss this round of negotiations during our general meeting today, 20 January, 11:30 to 1 pm (on Zoom). And once we have reviewed the administration’s proposals more closely, we will discuss them with area stewards and provide a more detailed explanation of them to you in an upcoming bulletin. For now, please see some notes about their proposals and our initial impressions below.

Administration’s proposals centred around cost-cutting

Unlike last round, in 2023, the administration has not proposed drastic changes such as deleting the collegial model. Our impression of their proposal package is that it primarily intends to reduce expenditures. Some of the most notable examples are:

1) Changes to Benefits that pass along more of the premium costs to our members, including proposals that would:

• Charge faculty who voluntarily reduce below part-time the cost of benefit premiums on a pro-rata basis (currently the employer is required to cover benefits for regularized employees regardless of the amount of work).

• Charge the cost of benefit premiums to the Union during job action (currently the employer covers the cost of benefits during the first month of  strike)

2) Changes to section banking that would limit overload banking for future underload to 2 sections (currently it’s 8).

3) Changes to the Benefit Trust Fund in Article 21. The administration says it is no longer in a financial position to give investment returns on 0.5% of the existing fund, even though the Collective Agreement requires this.

Despite the cost-cutting theme of many of its proposals, the administration has also tabled a few proposals that we think may spark meaningful, interest-based discussions at the table. These proposals include the creation of:

1. A joint committee on diversity, equity and inclusion

2. A faster “troubleshooter” process for addressing disputes about the collective agreement that would exist in addition to the standard grievance process

3. A review committee for proposing changes to the evaluation process

These proposals connect to some of the CFA’s proposals, which is encouraging. However, the administration’s proposals on these topics are very general, so it is too early to tell how discussion of these topics will go.

We look forward to further discussions with their bargaining team on these issues and on our substantive bargaining package, and we look forward to discussing this with the membership in more depth at our General Meeting tomorrow.

In Solidarity, The Bargaining Team

Doug Alards-Tomalin, Dwayne Beaver, Michael Begg, Chelsea Bell Eady, Iris Gordon, Ferdos Jamali, Reini Klein, and FPSE representatives Monica Staff and Robin Wylie

Bargaining Bulletin #1: Bargaining Begins!

Dear Colleagues, 

The Bargaining Committee met with the University administration on Wednesday December 3rd for our first discussion of the protocol agreement for negotiations. We established a timeline for exchanging initial proposals, which will begin in mid-January. While we will be negotiating on a wide range of topics, we mutually anchored the discussions around the primary theme of ensuring meaningful faculty input and direction in institutional decision-making, and supporting a strong and sustainable future for all. 

One key exchange worth sharing from this round is that the Bargaining Committee raised the issue of the administration’s recent practice of emailing bulletins directly to faculty following our meetings. We reminded our counterparts that CapU has a longstanding bargaining principle, historically reflected in every bargaining protocol, that both parties independently update their own principals about the bargaining process. 

We’re pleased to report that the administration modified its approach in response to our concerns. The administration has offered to provide the CFA bargaining team with 24 hours’ notice before issuing their releases, giving us the opportunity to review and respond as needed. We have just received their written proposal, and hope to reach agreement on the protocol soon. 

We will endeavour to provide timely updates to the membership after each meeting. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact any member of the bargaining team. 

In Solidarity,

CFA bargaining team, Doug Alards-Tomalin, Dwayne Beaver, Michael Begg, Chelsea Bell Eady, Iris Gordon, and Ferdos Jamali