AUFA will fight any attempts at forced relocations

As more details emerge about the new directives for Athabasca University, AUFA members have raised many questions and concerns. We would like to offer some clarity for members about AUFA’s position and about some of the information shared and claims made so far. 

AUFA’s position

AUFA has had a long-standing position in favour of AU maintaining its presence in Athabasca, which is a region of around 10,000 people north of Edmonton. This position is based on the union’s historical association with the town and the mandate of our members. This position is also based on the notion that the gradual job losses should cease and that a stable, gradually increasing number of positions should be in the town.

However, AUFA has always publicly opposed the notion of forced relocation of staff. Forced relocation would uproot entire families and disrupt lives and obligations. While we cannot know how this situation will eventually be resolved, AUFA will commit to vigorously defending members should any be forced to relocate against their will. 

Notably, Advanced Education Minister Demitrios Nicolaides personally assured the last AUFA President that relocations would not take place. This was obviously a false promise, as the latest news suggests that not only would the provincial government require relocations but also support them with additional funds. 

65% metric is a fantasy

So far, we only have the information that has been reported in the media. We urge the AU Board of Governors and administration to provide the full details of both the plan submitted to the government by AU and the most recent directives from the Minister. 

Still, with the available information, it seems that the key issue is the requirement that 65% of AU staff work out of Athabasca by 2024/25, which (according to AU’s president) would mean relocating about 500 current staff.  

This is, quite frankly, impossible. The Athabasca region simply cannot accommodate 500 new families in such a short amount of time. There is currently a shortage of housing, let alone other infrastructure concerns (schools, doctors, hospitals, etc). The Athabasca campus also does not have enough office spaces. It is unlikely the Minister will build a new building.

Beyond the feasibility, however, even one forced relocation of an AUFA member will be contested fiercely by the union. Anyone who moves to Athabasca should do so voluntarily, whether this is managed upon hiring or as a result of meaningful incentives. 

As well, the AU president shared in the media that this metric would be tied to 9% of the grant received by the government. Our understanding is that this would roughly work out to about 3% of the overall budget for the university (as the operating grant is about one third of total income). Without more information, it is difficult to see how this type of cut represents an existential crisis for the university. It is also difficult to understand why the university administration felt the need to fight back so publicly before consulting with those who would be directly affected or even sharing more fulsome details about the directives.  

Your rights

AUFA members are unionized and have a variety of protections under the collective agreement. Although it is premature to explore all potential legal options, the ability for members to simply say ‘no’ is profound, forcing the employer to explore costly legal mechanisms. With 18 months pay at layoff, extremely expensive discipline language (for the employer), and a variety of potential protections under grievance language, it is uncertain if the employer could successfully force the relocation of one member, and impossible to do it with hundreds.

Misleading statements

There were a few statements in the August 5 video message from the AU president that seem to be at least somewhat misleading if not wholly disingenuous. 

President Scott referred to the 2015 sustainability crisis and suggested that the Imagine strategic plan, along with a “new executive committed to building talented teams” are to be credited with a remarkable turnaround. However, there are many other available explanations and perspectives on this situation. 

The crisis in the mid-2010s was a case of a few years of flat student growth coupled with fiscal mismanagement from the university executive. There was also an explosive boom AU went through in the mid-2000s prior to that which suddenly tapered off. In any case, this situation was completely unrelated to the location of most employees. AU is an extremely successful university that grew four times its size since the 1990s with a significant portion of staff located in Athabasca.

AU’s service to students and ability to achieve the major initiatives of the Imagine plan is unrelated to its location. Despite the fanfare of these initiatives, things like moving to a new course platform and relocating IT systems to the cloud are not completely overhauling AU’s basic model and enduring mission to remove barriers to education. These initiatives rely on staff located both in and outside of Athabasca, and this will continue to be the case. 

President Scott also claimed that “we love that town.” Yet AUFA members and our colleagues have been raising concerns for years about the lackluster (to say the least) attempts to prioritize hiring to the region. A statement appears on many job ads stating that, all other things equal, applicants willing to move to Athabasca would be prioritized. Yet this statement is relegated to the fine print and not backed up with clear instructions for hiring committees, let alone financial incentives or non-monetary support.

AU has a long history of successfully attracting quality staff to live in Athabasca, and the success of the university to date is an indication this model has worked. Many in Athabasca (and elsewhere in rural locations) feel insulted by the implication that it’s simply not possible to attract the “best and the brightest” to the region, or that current residents aren’t counted in this hypothetical group. If the AU administration really do “love that town,” they should be making more substantial efforts to demonstrate their commitment. 

Finally, there has been a conflation of the jobs in Athabasca issue with the near-virtual initiative. That a strong majority of AU staff in Athabasca elected to work from home rather than report to offices in person is complicated by the fact that a truly hybrid option wasn’t on the table, along with other confusing details about the near-virtual plan. AUFA’s support for a maintained and increased presence in Athabasca is independent of whether individuals work from home or report to offices. 

AUFA believes that staff should be empowered and have choice and autonomy over how they work. If the government wishes staff to report to offices in Athabasca, the choice to do so should be appealing and include inducements and flexible models such as hybrid work from office and work from home.

We also urge both the AU administration and the province to release, in their entirety, the draft talent management plan submitted by AU, the letter with the Minister's directives, and the new Investment Management Agreement. Without more details, it is difficult to separate the real from the rhetoric.

Rhiannon Rutherford, President

David Powell, Past President

Athabasca University Faculty Association