Bargaining updates

you and your co-workers are bargaining for dignity in labour and learning

You and your co-workers filled out the Bargaining Survey in record numbers. The following bargaining proposals reflect your survey participation under six broad categories, focusing on dignity of our labour and dignity of our students’ learning. Your working conditions are UBC’s learning conditions!

Your negotiation committee plans to provide regular updates on this page after each day at the bargaining table—sorted below by each category!

Read our Bargaining Proposals!

Read our detailed bargaining proposals here:

equity, inclusion, and union representation

This category is about making UBC a more equitable place to work for all CUPE 2278 members and making it easier for you to be effective in standing up for the rights of members together as a union when it’s needed most. This includes expanding anti-discrimination protections and protections for academic freedom, addressing excessive police presence, and obtaining more information from UBC about disciplinary meetings.

  • We presented our equity, inclusion, and union representation proposals first. The employer had a few questions, and seemed generally interested in discussing quite a few of our proposals. They mentioned that they believed there was a monetary element in some proposals, which may delay discussion on some topics. 


  • Equity 2: Disciplinary Procedures (read more here): 

    We made significant progress towards an agreement on language that would ensure  the removal of written censures, letters of reprimand, or adverse reports from an employee’s file after a certain period of time. 

    We also tabled updates to the language in the collective agreement around disciplinary meetings. As it is, we often have very little notice about these meetings, which makes them inefficient for everyone involved. We proposed that the union be notified when a disciplinary meeting is coming up, with three working days’ notice. The employer countered with providing “reasonable notice” depending on circumstances. We are working on a counter-proposal with language that would not give them so much leeway to schedule disciplinary meetings on short notice.

    Equity 1: Anti-Discrimination Protections (read more here):

    We also tabled additions to the discrimination policy in the collective agreement to include caste and citizenship status as categories for which an employee cannot be discriminated against. The employer pushed back on this by saying they only wish to be in line with the BC Human Rights Code, which does not include these categories. We will be seeking more input on this from members, and we encourage you to reach out if this is an issue you feel passionate about or are affected by.


    Equity 5: Academic Freedom (read more here):

    The employer initially did not accept our language we proposed regarding academic freedom. Their position was that this falls under the jurisdiction of the senate. We provided examples of collective agreements across universities in Canada that do have articles protecting academic freedom, like the CAs of unions at the University of Toronto, SFU, York University, and even the UBC Faculty Association, providing evidence that collective agreement protections for academic freedom are indeed a standard provision, even among other unions at UBC! After we provided this information, they indicated that they would come back with a counter-proposal on our next bargaining date.

a fair contract for GAAs

Your GAA negotiating team has been negotiating how GAAs fit into our collective agreement since last October. Since then, we’ve made major progress on many aspects of GAA work, including things like allocation of work, leaves, vacation time, hiring processes, and job posting timelines. However, UBC has refused to accept a definition of the category “GAA” that includes all members who signed cards and were certified into our union in 2023. Our proposals here mostly revolve around continuing GAA negotiations where we left off, and updating language around our “union recognition” clause to make sure that all workers certified into our union are recognized as members of our bargaining unit.

  • We presented our GAA-related proposals to the employer. During bargaining, the employer indicated that they would be unwilling to discuss proposals related to the GAAs until they had submitted a filing to the labour relations board. Read down below for our Unfair Labour Practice complaint and a discussion of how UBC has prevented GAAs from reaching a fair contract for over two years. (See bargaining blog for an explainer on our ULP complaint)

improving undergraduate education

CUPE 2278 members are at the forefront of delivering high quality education for UBC students. But shrinking TA contracts and inconsistent training make it hard for members to do their jobs. These proposals aim to bring more consistent TA training and limit class sizes. Your working conditions are UBC’s learning conditions!

  • We presented our proposals to the employer. They seemed to ask very few questions on these proposals and seemed amenable to some of them,especially in the realm of improving TA training.

procedural

These proposals relate to everyday processes that affect our jobs: posting, job selection, ensuring that hiring preference is maintained even during budget cuts, and some redefinitions to make our collective agreement easier to read and understand. 

  • We presented our procedural proposals to the employer. After some discussion and questions, the employer seemed eager to get to work on these proposals. We agreed to discuss many of them in more detail at our next session of bargaining! Keep posted for updates on October 8th.

  • One of the employer’s proposals revolved around extending the time periods where TAs can be asked to work before the start of the academic term and after the end of the term. They proposed a number of changes to Article B 3.04 of our collective agreement. Specifically, the employer wanted to change some language to add “work after April 30” . The employer also proposed an additional Letter of Understanding that would require Teaching Assistants to work outside of their contract as a result of exams being rescheduled. 

    In response to this, we proposed a conceptual “Contract Extension Agreement” that the employer would have to fill out each time they would like a TA to work before the start date or after the end date of the contract. This would allow for members, with their mutual agreement, to be compensated additionally for work done before or after a contract starts.. We are waiting to hear the employer’s response on this. 

    We also discussed making sure that “full” TA positions match the length of time TAs actually work and made meaningful progress with the employer on changing this. Currently, we are proposing defining a “full Teaching Assistant position” as 192 hours within a single academic term. This is a technical change, but it clarifies language that has caused confusion in departments around preference and payment. For example, we have seen confusion within department administration around what counts as a full TA position resulting in members getting paid less than they are owed, especially in summer terms. Clarity here would go a long way towards preventing these administrative errors. 

    Additionally, the employer has also indicated that they are ready to agree to two of our less-contentious procedural proposals:

    • Procedural 3: TA position vs TAship (i.e., the ship has sailed!)

    • Procedural 8: Whistleblower protection update

  • We went back and forth with UBC regarding Articles B 2.01, 3.01, 3.02, and 3.03. The central issue of discussion on Thursday was rehiring preference. In our initial proposal package, we proposed two new articles regarding preference. One said that in cases where members have to accept reduced contracts because of budgetary considerations, their preferred number of hours will return to the pre-budget cut amount. Another proposed that when members work as sessional instructors, these members will maintain their preference for teaching assistant hours for one year. We also proposed that members accepting sessional positions must be notified of this. 

    UBC has now responded to these proposals. On the issue of returning to pre-budget cut preference, UBC accepted this general idea but wants it restricted to only one year. We raised the concern that budget cuts are not a single year occurrence, but something we will likely be facing for multiple years. 

    Regarding preference being put on hold while you are a sessional instructor, UBC seemed open to this, but raised concerns about the administrative difficulties of notifying people about this. In response, we proposed a field in a standardized teaching assistant application form. We also took this opportunity to propose more specific language regarding the standardization of the job postings and selection process, touched on in our Procedural 4 Proposal. 

    We expect a reply on these proposals at one of our upcoming bargaining days. 

  • Procedural 4: Job Postings:

    We had some back and forth on increased transparency in the job selection process by introducing a base level of standardization for application forms.


    Procedural 6: Preference Continuation

    In relation to job postings, we also discussed the process for how members would be able to ensure that they can maintain their hiring preference if it’s reduced due to budgetary constraints. We want to make sure the onus is not entirely on the member to indicate that they have preference as the employer’s language would indicate, and are pushing back for a better system 


    Procedural 8: Whistleblower Protection Update

    We signed off (tentative agreement) upon language which will protect members from retaliation, specifically relating to UBC’s policies [Financial Investigations Policy (SC15), Retaliation Policy (SC18), and Public Interest Disclosure Policy (SC19)].

dignified conditions at the centre for accessibility

Exam invigilators at the Centre for Accessibility face chronic understaffing and a lack of support from UBC. These proposals address major issues for members at the CfA, including more transparent hiring practices, paid breaks, and guaranteed leaves.

  • We presented the initial demands to the employer. We plan to set aside a separate session of bargaining to discuss CfA-related issues and give opportunity for CfA members to meet with the employer and make their voice heard. Keep posted!

  • We focused on two non-monetary proposals. First, we tabled a proposal for a more detailed, flexible and standardized process for CfA exam invigilators to submit their availability. Second, we put forward new language around hiring and training timelines. Such timelines would not only work to provide members with more job stability, but they would also ensure that invigilators are adequately trained prior to the busy final exam season. Our CfA proposals also include paid breaks, minimum staffing levels, and guaranteed leaves; however, we plan to discuss these at a later time along with our other monetary proposals.

    In response to our non-monetary proposals, UBC mostly asked clarifying questions. With experienced workers at the CfA in attendance, we were able to answer these questions in a way that was attuned to the on-the-ground realities of the CfA. 

    We are hoping to receive responses from UBC on these non-monetary CfA proposals at our next bargaining day on December 10. This will be a busy day of bargaining as we expect counter-proposals from UBC on much of what was discussed on November 20th. In addition, we are also hoping to table more language related to some of our other procedural proposals as well as proposals related to equity, inclusion, and union representation.

monetary proposals: wages, health, and wellbeing

Monetary proposals are those that we think will cost the employer money. These include wages, pay equity, healthcare, tuition waivers, ending the minimum funding clawback, and others.

Your negotiating committee generally will present and discuss the “non-monetary” proposals (or those that we don’t think will cost the employer anything) first, because these are easier to make significant progress on, and less likely to result in our negotiations breaking down. Once we’ve discussed the non-monetary proposals as much as we can, we will move onto monetary. 

  • We presented our monetary proposals to the employer. However, we plan to first discuss non-monetary proposals. Once we’ve made sufficient progress on the non-monetary, we will move into discussion on the monetary. We know these proposals are a top priority for our members, so expect lots more from us once we start discussing them.