December Newsletter – Bargaining Update, Personal Email Request, Poster Campaign, Events and Space Policy! – December 17, 2025
December, 2025
BARGAINING UPDATE
Dear Members,
I hope you are seeing the end of your marking and looking forward to a well-deserved break.
Provincial Mandate
In bargaining news, the BCGEU and the HEU (Hospital Employees’ Union) have both settled their collective agreements with the BC government. This should mean that we can move forward with bargaining on monetary matters. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. While normally the financial mandate offered to the biggest public sector unions is the same as that offered to other public sector unions, that is not true this year. Some aspects of the financial deal that the government offered the BCGEU are the same as that offered to other unions – in that it is a four year deal (from 2025 to 2029) and the general across the board increases are the same. However, the additional “flex” monies the government is offering to most public sector unions are much lower than those offered to the BCGEU and HEU. These “flex” funds are very important. For the UVic FA they are crucial in enabling us to fund central bargaining priorities such as addressing ever increasing workload, including the increased pressures of student accommodations.
All of the other public sector unions are holding out for the same deal from the government as what was offered to BCGEU. We’re hoping that as other big unions seek this parity, it will have a positive impact on the UVic FA’s monetary options. However, it will unfortunately not help bring our negotiations to a speedy close. We will start discussing monetary items at the table in early January, but we still have a lot of work to do to come to agreement on non-monetary matters.
Some Positive Developments
We have made some progress recently. Over the past two weeks the administration’s bargaining team has responded on a number of important proposals we had put forward in the spring and fall. We are getting closer to an agreement regarding the removal of course reviews and required training for peer reviewers from the CA. The administration has demonstrated some flexibility in increasing the options available to members to fulfil their “continuous learning” proposal, and reducing the number of hours of continuous learning required. Negotiations are ongoing on this important matter.
A few weeks ago we had a positive meeting with their Chief Negotiator and Chair of their bargaining team (Pamela Richards and Helga Hallgrimsdottir) to discuss how we might move forward on workload issues, as they have thus far rejected all of our workload proposals, including those that would ensure adequate faculty supports for student accommodations. We agreed to hold collaborative discussions regarding workload, in the hope of moving forward. These collaborative discussions will begin this week. We hope to have positive news to report on this important matter in the New Year.
We have also made some progress in further clarifying definitions of scholarly activity, as we are aware that this remains a concern for many teaching stream members. The admin has also recently agreed to our proposal that members can now take up to one month sick leave with Chair’s permission, without medical documentation, which is a positive step forward.
Matters of Concern
Other matters remain more concerning. We have refused to accept the administration’s efforts to impose further control over members in the RPT process. For example, we have rejected their proposal in the case of successful reappointments to document when “the committee has concerns about the record of performance.” We are aware that in the current context this documentation could potentially put future promotions at risk. We also rejected a proposal that would have prevented members from applying for reappointment and promotion at the same time, unless they had such an agreement in their appointment letter. We have also rejected the admin’s proposal to increase the length of time (from two years to four) required before members can apply for promotion to full professor.
The admin bargaining team has thus far rejected our efforts to further limit the negative impact of student experience of learning surveys on members, despite their empirically documented multiple biases.
The administration wishes to significantly reduce the number of vacation days that librarian members can carry over, with particularly negative equity-related impacts.
Although both the FA and the administration are aware that there is a growing gulf of communication and understanding between faculty members, librarians and the administration at UVic, and thus between the FA and the administration, the admin shows no interest in working to bridge this growing gulf.
The administration has rejected our various proposals to limit certain Collective Agreement language (specifically in article 3) that has been used by Faculty Relations to significantly limit the communication of FA leadership and staff with Deans and members of the senior administration. They have also rejected our proposal to add language to the Collective Agreement that would require regular meetings between the FA leadership and the senior University leadership, although SFU has similar language. Mandating regular communication between the FA and the senior leadership would ensure that senior leaders hear about and understand the concerns of our members.
We are disappointed that the admin bargaining team has rejected our proposal to implement a joint FA-admin equity committee, despite the fact that many universities have such committees, with shared responsibility for addressing certain equity issues. Their alternative proposal appears to fetter rather than strengthen our ability to advocate and bargain to address issues of equity, inclusion and decolonization for and with members from equity deserving groups.
Upcoming Proposals, and Proposals Where We are Awaiting a Response
Now that we should be able to begin bargaining on monetary matters in the new year, we are currently working on finalizing our salary proposals. We plan to propose increases in CPI amounts, which have fallen behind the rate of inflation, and to increase the number of years until CPI drop off.
We have also recently presented language that would ensure limits on the University’s ability to conduct surveillance of our email or other forms of electronic communication, as well as their ability to use visual or other technological surveillance methods. As I have noted in previous updates, we have already presented a number of important proposals regarding childcare, AI and technological change more generally, and intellectual property, among other issues of importance to our members.
Your support is crucial
In the new year, we will be asking for your support to show the administration that our members are behind us in our efforts to reduce your workload and improve your salary and working conditions. We will be providing you with options to email the administration in support of our bargaining efforts, as well as potentially organizing a rally for late January or early February. Stay tuned! We appreciate your patience and your support, as your bargaining team works hard to get you the best possible Collective Agreement.
All the very best for a relaxing winter break,
Lynne
______
Lynne Marks
Lead Negotiator,
UVic FA, on behalf of the UVic FA Negotiating Team
Personal Email Request
Recently, we shared that members of the Dalhousie Faculty Association were locked out of email and other institutional software during their three-week strike. Given the current state of bargaining at UVic, we are taking the proactive step to request members’ personal email addresses. While we sincerely hope that we do not have to hold a strike vote or call for strike action, especially since this has never happened at UVic. We feel that providing us with your personal email is necessary as a precautionary measure to be prepared for the worst, however unlikely.
If you would like to provide the FA with your personal email address, please complete this survey.
This information will be collected and held by the FA Secretary and will only be shared with other FA Officers and staff in the event of a lockout or likely lockout from email. You will only be contacted at your personal email in the event of a lockout or likely lockout. Once a tentative agreement has been reached and passed, any documents or saved survey data with your personal email address will be deleted.
UVic FA Poster Campaign!
Volunteers from the Membership Engagement Committee have been travelling around campus to take pictures of bargaining support posters on office doors and windows. We will feature a collage of photos in the January newsletter to celebrate your support of bargaining and the FA. A special thank you to the volunteers who have made the journey around campus to take photos.
Don’t yet have a poster and would like one (or more!) delivered to your office? Complete this survey to request an FA poster and one will be delivered to you in the New Year.
Upcoming Events
FA Office Soft Closure: Ahead of the holiday break, the FA office will be closed for meetings December 18 and 19 and will be full closed December 22 through January 7.
In November, we announced a ‘save the date’ for a January bargaining rally. Given the slower than anticipated progress of bargaining, and how soon into term January 9 is, we will postpone the rally to a later date. The rescheduled date will be announced in January.
Spotlight On: UVic Space Policy Feedback
Last month, we informed the membership of a new space policy (read it here) at UVic that was created and approved without consultation with the FA. Given the many concerns of the FA, we invited members to provide feedback on the policy. Thank you to everyone who submitted their thoughts! The FA has filed a formal grievance on this matter and is in conversation with the university. Your feedback will support this process.
70 members from across campus provided feedback on the policy. Members noted the real need for space to be used effectively across campus, to identify improvements in use of space, as well as the potential appropriate shared use of office space with sessional instructors when members are away for extended periods of time. However, nearly all positive comments were paired with concerns, including concerns about confidentiality, surveillance, the diverse nature of on-campus work, the administrative burden of this policy, and the 80% requirement as too high for sole occupant eligibility.
The feedback received was overwhelmingly negative with members referring to this policy as abhorrent, egregious, dictatorial, oppressive, and underhanded. Several key concerns were voiced by members:
- “Undermines Dignity and Respect”: members described this policy as both reflective of, and contributing to, an adversarial relationship between senior administration and faculty/librarians on campus. They described this policy as a breach of the collective agreement, administrative overreach, and about “control, not cooperation”. Members also noted that this policy serves to undermine trust and micromanage faculty.
- Ignores Individual Need: members perceived this policy as ignoring important personal needs and circumstances, such as the needs of individuals with disabilities for a private and distraction-free working environment. Members also noted the cost of living makes living close to campus out of reach for many newer faculty, that not everyone can afford to live in a home with a dedicated office space, and that this policy ignores the varied needs of members with young children or aging family.
- Undermines “Workplace Dignity”: Overwhelmingly, members described this policy as “out of touch” with the diverse work of faculty and librarians both on and off campus and the natural fluctuations in office use from semester to semester. Members noted varied use of office space for in-person and virtual meetings, student meetings and make-up exams, as well as storage of personal libraries, teaching and research equipment, and archival materials. They also noted the use of non-office spaces across campus for teaching, research, and a variety of meetings, questioning how 80% office space use would be calculated. They noted that some of the work of faculty, librarians, and students cannot be completed at home, and that this policy ignores the importance of time spent off-campusfor community-based researchers. Overall, members clearly communicated that this policy reflects a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the work of members, and that sharing office space would undermine productivity.
- Privacy, Confidentiality, and “Big Brother”: Members also overwhelmingly noted concerns about possible surveillance in their use of office space, referring to this line in the policy as a slippery slope and unethical, questioning the legality of such a provision. Members also noted the importance of confidential space for sensitive conversations with students and research participants, as well as for secure document storage, as outlined by TCPS-2 ethical research standards. Surveillance of members was described as both insulting and tyrannical.
- Not “One-Size-Fits-All”: Several members recognized that the use of space is important but varied across departments on campus. They noted that it is important not to “bypass” the independence and needs of units with a rigid policy that does not reflect the nature of work across departments.
- Contradictory: Several members noted contradictory messaging with this policy and: (1) the new buildings being added to campus; (2) administrative expectations for in-person teaching; (3) and “administrative bloat” across campus. Members questioned whether or not detailed investigations of increased administrative use of space and its impact on space availability have been examined alongside assumptions about faculty and librarian use of space.
- Undermines Collegial Relationships: Several members noted that shared office space may drive people away from campus, potentially leading to member retention issues, and that such “embarrassing” office space policies may be an issue in the recruitment of new faculty.
- Administrative, Emotional, and Financial Burden: Some members noted the increased burden of sharing an office, especially for the coordination of schedules and meetings. Members also noted the unfair burden this policy places on department chairs and directors, who already face an extremely high administrative workload. Members also questioned the financial costs of moving faculty and ensuring office furniture was appropriately sized for those forced to share an office.
