Workload – Bargaining Update

April 17, 2025

Thanks to all the members who came to one of the two Townhalls held on April 15th and 16th.

In the days leading up to mediation on April 26th and 27th the Negotiating Team will continue to communicate with the membership on the progress we managed to make at the bargaining table so far, the compromises we have had to make, and what we still hope to achieve.

Unfortunately, the process of bargaining these past months has involved spending significant time resisting changes proposed by the Employer that would have increased workload and altered metrics of evaluation. The Negotiating Team has worked hard to fight against the erosion of past practices and collegial governance. We have sought to protect teaching and research standards and principles. In some cases, our hardest fought battles have been in just maintaining the current rights and responsibilities of CUASA members and Carleton.

In addition to this communication on workload, expect communications on other bargaining issues including health benefits, equity issues, and wages to follow.

While staff and bargaining committees prepare for a possible lockout or strike, the Negotiating Team continues to prepare for mediation in the hope that the Employer will come to the table with a fair and equitable deal.

Workload

Workload has been one of the main priorities of our members for this round of bargaining. With changes resulting from budget cuts, including increases in class size, it will likely continue to be one of the top priorities of our members over the coming years. As CUASA’s Negotiating Team heads into mediation after we requested a no-board report, we want to provide clarity to our members on what was and was not achieved regarding workload during bargaining.

Despite our repeated attempts at the table and despite watering down our proposals, the Employer categorically refused to engage on the issues of TA allocation and class size. The Employer also refused, at this time, to include language on extending grading timelines, particularly during the University closure period. Additionally, The Employer refused to provide for the replacement of librarians on sabbatical or long-term leaves. The workload of librarians on leave is redistributed to colleagues and is one of the main causes of librarian workload issues.

What was gained, mainly through small changes in Article 13, while not insignificant, will not address the systemic workload issues our members face. Those changes are:

• Chair/Director must endeavour to ensure that the assigned workload within the department or equivalent is equitably distributed.
• The assignment of teaching workload must consider the modality of courses.
• Responsibilities temporarily transferred to a librarian because of a sabbatical or other leave cannot result in an unreasonable workload and cannot be considered as establishing a new norm.
• Faculty, teaching stream, will receive a course release in their first year of preliminary appointment, like other faculty (through Article 10.1(a)).

In addition, the Negotiating Team signed Letters of Understanding (LOUs) related to workload. The first LOU creates a joint Workload Committee tasked with identifying and documenting workload issues for faculty and librarians and providing recommendations regarding those issues within 18 months. While this provides a forum to discuss workload more thoroughly and find solutions, particularly as consultation with faculty and librarians must be organized, and is thus a positive step, it is not a solution to the immediate workload issues our members face. The second LOU creates an expedited mechanism regarding the assignment of teaching workload. Members who believe that their assignment is contrary in some way to Article 13 (e.g., that it is not equitable) will be able to ask for redress from the Dean, and, if needed, use an expedited grievance process to resolve the issue before classes start.

These results must be understood within the context of the Employer’s proposals that would have resulted in an increase in workload (e.g., increasing the maximum course load, and removing language protecting past practices – which the Employer agreed to withdraw during conciliation). While we were able to hold the line and push back against these changes, this limited our ability to make significant gains for workload.

Are the gains of this round of collective bargaining enough to address persistent and increasing workload issues? Probably not. Are they an improvement? Yes. Ultimately, we believe that this was the best we could gain in the circumstances we are in. The fight for a sustainable and equitable workload is a continuous one. We will watch closely the work of the future Workload Committee and continue to put pressure on the Employer between and during rounds of bargaining.