Universities operating in an opaque labour relations environment

By Lethbridge Herald on February 19, 2022.

Dr. Christopher J. Nicol
Professor of Economics

Not so long ago, 2017 to be precise, research universities in Alberta were unique workplaces, with their operations governed by the (then) Post-Secondary Learning Act. Disputes pertaining to terms and conditions of work were resolved via mutually agreed binding arbitration. Strike and lock-out “tools” were not available in this system, by mutual agreement of the faculty associations and the universities’ boards of governors. Senior administrations at universities were staffed, in the main, by faculty members selected to those positions through processes where faculty members played an important role.

In 2017, the NDP government introduced Bill 7, “An Act to Enhance Post-Secondary Education Collective Bargaining”. 

When it was proclaimed, Bill 7 amended the Post-Secondary Learning Act and the Alberta Labour Relations Code, to yield this so-called “enhanced” collective bargaining environment. Overnight, faculty associations became unions, and strike/lock-out became the mode through which collective bargaining impasse was to be resolved, rather than through arbitrated settlements. Universities then became “just another workplace”, governed by “standard” workplace “rules”.

Mutually agreed terms and conditions of work make a lot of sense in a university environment since the running of such institutions relies on the expertise of the professionally-trained and educated employees who essentially run the operation in a “collegial governance” framework. Strike/lock-out arrangements are not well-suited to such environments, these being ancient “tools” (blunt instruments) developed in nineteenth century industrial and manufacturing environments, for the protection of workers from the “rapacious capitalist”. The water became further muddied in 2019 when the UCP government passed the Public Sector Employers Act. 

According to that Act, the “Minister may issue directives that an employer must follow before, during and after engaging in collective bargaining or related processes.” These directives may include directives regarding the term of a collective agreement and its fiscal limits. 

Further, the directives issued by the minister are to be confidential. Thus, Alberta universities are now working in an opaque labour relations environment akin to 19th-century factories, overseen by the Government of Alberta, giving rise to the debacle we are currently observing in post-secondary collective bargaining in this province. This is not a good thing for students, employees of universities, university administrations or their boards of governors or, indeed, the societies these universities serve, for the greater public good.

The reasons behind the changes to the labour relations environment in post-secondary education in Alberta are largely political. 

NDP governments, which are very similar in philosophy to the likes of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, are built on foundational relationships with trade unions, so feel better off the higher the proportion of workers who are unionised. 

The ability to issue collective bargaining “directives” is desirable by the likes of fiscally-conservative governments, such as the UCP, since this gives such governments oversight and control over the collective bargaining process, not leaving to the “chance” decision of an arbitrator the pattern of collective bargaining settlements.

The current strike by academic staff at the University of Lethbridge and subsequent lock-out by its Board of Governors are by-products of the “enhanced” collective bargaining environment introduced by an NDP government, augmented by the control through “directives” of the current UCP government.

 This situation is now setting groups of employees in the university against one another, as evidenced by the deluge of claim and counter-claim against each other by the parties to the negotiations.

There was a time when collective bargaining negotiation at universities in Alberta was a collaborative effort. There was no “us and them” or what one party won, another party had to lose. Mutual gains were possible. Our new “enhanced” environment is a toxic brew, likely to continue until there is a return to the use of arbitrated settlements of disagreements, rather than the “mutually assured destruction” of the strike/lock-out “rules of engagement”.

Christopher J. Nicol is a former chief negotiator with the University of Regina Faculty Association and former chief negotiator, with the governors of the Board of the University of Lethbridge.