August Bargaining Update – August 8, 2025

Dear Members,

I hope you’re well. I’m writing with several bargaining-related updates.

Although we’re not currently bargaining, we expect to resume in early September. The provincial mandate is still pending, likely awaiting a settlement between the BC government and a major public-sector union such as the BCGEU.  The latter union is currently holding a strike vote. A strike could begin in early September. As in 2022, strike action by the BCGEU may help ensure better settlements across the BC public sector, including in universities. We’ll keep you posted on developments and ways to support if needed.

Recently, the University’s bargaining team portrayed the province’s finances as bleak. While we agree things aren’t ideal, the BC government’s most recent fiscal update shows higher-than-expected revenues and a smaller deficit: see link. This provides some hope of more acceptable agreements.

Back at UVic, I have some bargaining-related good news.  We recently resolved a significant disagreement related to RPT at the bargaining table. Last fall, during an active RPT application, the University included evidence (an excerpt from a confidential investigation report) from a non-disciplinary Letter of Expectations process in a Member’s RPT file. We argued that this violated the Collective Agreement, filed a grievance, and, when the matter could not be resolved, we filed for arbitration. Fortunately, we managed to settle the grievance in bargaining without proceeding to what would have been a costly arbitration. The resulting agreement ensures that non-disciplinary processes (Oral Discussion, Letter of Expectations) in Article 46 cannot be used in RPT cases, except in rare circumstances involving certain Letters of Expectations, only with the explicit consent of the member, and only in promotions to Professor/Teaching Professor/Librarian III/IV. Evidence from Letters of Expectations can never be used in reappointments or promotion to Associate (both streams) or Librarian II. The full settlement is attached.

Unfortunately, another issue related to Article 46 (the Discipline article) remains unresolved. Since January 2024, the University has not been providing reasonable information or the alleged nature of the conduct/event to Members who have been put under investigation. The University has been delaying disclosure of the allegations until the investigator contacts the member. This has resulted in members waiting, sometimes for many months, without knowing the substance of the accusations against them. This practice causes needless stress and anxiety for our members – particularly given that many investigations ultimately find no policy violation.

The language in the Collective Agreement is clear. Members have the right to know the case against them when their Dean provides them with a notice of investigation. The approach we have been seeing recently is a serious breach of our Members’ rights to procedural fairness and natural justice. With respect to notice in disciplinary investigations, it is a fundamental principle of natural justice that a Member must know the case against them and the specific allegation(s) they are required to answer. This principle is well established in law. We filed a policy grievance to address this matter but unfortunately the University recently declined to settle this grievance, and so we have referred the grievance to arbitration. We remain hopeful that we will come to a fair resolution of this important issue either through arbitration or in collective bargaining.

Finally, as you are aware, during bargaining this spring, it appeared that the University might be willing – under certain conditions – to remove course review requirements from the Collective Agreement. Given this possibility, we asked whether a temporary arrangement (prior to final ratification of the new Collective Agreement) could be put in place so that course reviews would not be required for the upcoming academic year.  Unfortunately, the University informed us that it was their understanding that they could not enter into any such temporary agreement with the FA until they received approval of their bargaining mandate from PSEC. We know that many  members were hopeful a temporary solution could be reached. However, course reviews will have to remain in place for now, and we will have to wait and see what might be possible in bargaining.

Your bargaining team is spending the summer refining our proposals for the fall, with top priority on equitable and enforceable workload provisions—your number one concern.

Let me know if you have any questions about any of these issues, and stay tuned for our new FA newsletters, that will be starting in September, as well as exciting activities led by our Membership Engagement Committee that will show the administration your support for our bargaining team.  If you’re interested in getting more involved in your union at this important time, and would like to join the Membership Engagement Committee in any capacity, please email me or Amal Vincent at [email protected].

Wishing you a wonderful rest of the summer.

All the very best,
Lynne Marks
Chief Negotiator