Our last few tl;dr series touched on parts of the MoA that are easily forgotten. Although redundancies, financial exigency, and layoffs are rare events, the way they are enshrined in policy nevertheless plays a key role in overall job security at the university. It’s time to put all the pieces together and see what the big picture looks like.
For this analysis, we rely on two policy statements from the Canadian Association of University Teachers: CAUT Policy Statement: Restructuring, and the Redeployment of Academic Staff and CAUT Policy Statement: Financial Exigency and Lay-offs. In what follows, we will compare how UW measures up to the criteria laid out in the CAUT policy statements.
Restructuring and Program Redundancy
CAUT Criteria | Pass/Fail |
Academic units should be closed or restructured, or the programs they provide declared redundant or otherwise reconfigured, only for bona fide academic reasons | FAIL. Redundancy may also be declared in the event of financial exigency. |
The institution’s Senate or equivalent body must give approval for restructuring. | PASS. Senate is responsible for approving and recommending redundancy/ restructuring. |
Under no circumstances should budgetary restraint or the external imposition of measures or targets result in program redundancy. | FAIL. If the redundancy is due to financial exigency, then program redundancy may occur for budgetary reasons. |
Redundancy should be considered only under exceptional circumstances, such as when a program has sustained a significant and likely continuing loss of students for reasons unrelated to changes in admissions policy. | UNCLEAR. The term “bona fide academic reasons” is not clearly defined in the MoA, so it’s unclear whether it satisfies the criterion. Financial exigency is an exceptional circumstance; however there is no mention of loss of students. |
Although academic administrators may recommend that a program be declared redundant, the Senate (or equivalent body) should make the final decision. | UNCLEAR. A program redundancy is based on a recommendation from Senate to the Board of Governors; it is unclear which body has final say (i.e., whether the Senate’s recommendation is final). |
No academic staff should be laid off as a result of a program redundancy. | FAIL. Whether the redundancy is due to bona fide academic reasons or to financial exigency, academic staff are vulnerable to layoffs. |
Academic staff affected by program redundancy, or any such restructuring should be redeployed to other existing or new academic units and provided with any necessary training. | FAIL. While the first priority is toward transfers and includes provisions for training, the possibility of layoffs still exists. |
The employer should bear all costs associated with redeployment. | UNCLEAR. There is no mention of costs in the MoA. |
Academic staff who have been redeployed must retain all rights and privileges, including rank, salary, and seniority. | PASS. |
The Lecturer Perspective
It is clear that UW has a ways to go before measuring up to the CAUT criteria. A major weakness in the MoA is that program redundancy can occur for reasons beyond bona fide academic reasons, namely financial exigency. Furthermore, layoffs remain a possibility in the event of program redundancy, which weakens job security and especially so for definite-term Lecturers. There also remains a lack of clarity with respect to Senate’s role on final determination of program redundancy; although the MoA is clear that Senate must make such a recommendation, it is unclear whether this recommendation must be followed by the Board of Governors.
Financial Exigency and Layoffs
CAUT Criteria | Pass/Fail |
The first duty of the academic institution is to ensure that its academic priorities remain paramount, particularly with regard to the quality of instruction and of research, and the preservation of academic freedom. | PASS. |
The termination of academic staff appointments should occur only during a state of financial exigency. | FAIL. Layoffs may also occur in the event of program redundancy. |
A state of financial exigency exists when substantial and recurring financial deficits threaten the survival of the institution as a whole. | PASS. |
Academic staff lay-offs, contract termination or non-renewal of limited-term contracts should only be considered as a last resort after all efforts have been undertaken to alleviate the financial crisis by rigorous economies in all other segments of the institution, and only after all possible means of improving the institution's revenues have been exhausted. | PASS. |
Only the board of governors may declare a financial exigency and only after an open and transparent investigation by a fact-finding commission, jointly appointed by the board and the academic staff association, has confirmed the existence of a bona fide financial exigency. | PARTIAL. The President is the one who can declare a financial exigency. Following this, the Financial Exigency Committee, which is jointly appointed, confirms or rejects the declaration of financial exigency. |
A bona fide financial exigency should only arise through accounting for all the institution’s resources, not just the academic or salary budget. | FAIL. The elements that the FEC must consider are all related to financial resources; there is no explicit requirement to look into other university resources such as capital assets. |
A bona fide financial exigency cannot be declared for an individual academic unit or program. | PASS. |
If the board [of Governors] believes that a financial exigency exists it should be required to immediately notify the academic staff association and provide the association with all relevant financial information. | PARTIAL. The reporting of a financial exigency falls on the University President, not on the Board of Governors. There is also no explicit requirement about timelines, i.e., how soon after finding a financial exigency the president must give notice. However, the president is obligated to notify the association and provide relevant information. |
The jointly appointed fact-finding commission should determine the validity and scope of the financial crisis and explore all alternatives to prevent the declaration of a financial exigency. | FAIL. While the FEC does look into the crisis, it appears to be bound to the President’s plan on addressing the exigency. There is also no explicit language stating that the FEC must try to prevent the declaration of exigency; it must either agree or disagree with it. |
The board of governors may declare a financial exigency only if the fact-finding commission determines that there is a bona fide financial exigency. | UNCLEAR. It appears that the declaration of the exigency is up to the Financial Exigency Committee; the Board of Governors is responsible for implementing actions from the FEC report. |
Any reduction of the budget for salaries and benefits of bargaining members must not exceed the amount of the reduction specified by the fact-finding commission. | FAIL. No such provision is included. |
The board [of Governors] should make every effort to prevent lay-offs through voluntary leaves of absence, retirement incentives and other cost reductions. | PARTIAL. The language in the MoA suggests that layoffs are a last resort; however, it is not clear what the Board of Governors’ role is in preventing layoffs. The BoG is responsible for implementing items from the FEC report; however, it can also choose not to carry out certain recommendations. |
There shall be no new academic or administrative appointments for the duration of the financial exigency. The reappointment of a member shall not be considered a new appointment. | PARTIAL. A hiring freeze is put in place; however, there is no provision stating that reappointments are not considered as new appointments. |
[For layoff order] categories of employees should be identified based on type of appointment, and not based on academic discipline, program or administrative unit. | PARTIAL. The criterion is satisfied if the layoffs occur due to a financial exigency and not satisfied if the layoffs occur due to a program redundancy. |
In all cases, individuals holding tenured, continuing appointments should be the last category of academic employees subject to lay-off. | PASS. It is, however, unclear whether continuing appointments are on the same rung as tenured appointments or not. The wording suggests not. |
Within each category, lay-offs should be by reverse order of seniority. | PARTIAL. There is an additional protection for those with high performance evaluations. |
The employer should offer positions elsewhere in the institution to members who are identified for lay-off or non-renewal of contract. | FAIL. No such provisions. |
Members who are laid off should be entitled to at least 18 months notice. | FAIL. The 18 months notice only applies to those with tenure or holding either probationary-term or continuing appointments with more than six years of service, and only in the event of program redundancy. |
Members who are laid off should be entitled to severance pay based upon years of service. | PASS. |
Members who are laid off should be entitled to accumulated sabbatical entitlement in the form of paid leave or one-time payment. | FAIL. No mention of sabbaticals in the relevant sections. |
Members who are laid off should be entitled to pension and insurance (life, medical, dental, disability) coverage at the institution's expense until they have secured alternative full-time employment. | PARTIAL. Members get benefits/pension but only up until at most three years after layoff. |
Members who are laid off should be entitled to full access to scholarly facilities, including office and laboratory space, library and computer services for five years or until alternative academic employment is secured. Members, their spouses and dependants should receive tuition waivers for courses taken at the institution during that period. | PARTIAL. The recall period is 3 years, not five so members have access to libraries, office space, lab space, and computers for up to three years. |
Members who are laid off should be entitled to right of first refusal for at least five years for any vacant position in the institution for which that member is qualified or for which they may become qualified with reasonable training. | FAIL. The recall period is three years, not five. |
Contract academic staff (full or part-time) whose limited-term contracts expire during a financial exigency shall retain a right of recall consistent with the seniority and job security provisions of the collective agreement. | FAIL. No mention of this case in the MoA. |
All grievances arising out of the procedures designed to deal with a state of financial exigency should be subject to the grievance process in the collective agreement. | PASS. We note that we are governed by the MoA and policies rather than a collective agreement. |
The Lecturer Perspective
Again, there is work to be done to bring the MoA up to CAUT standard. Of particular note is the power that the University President has in declaring a financial exigency. While CAUT recommends that such a declaration be made by the Board of Governors and only in the case where an independent fact-finding committee has established that such an exigency exists, this is very much not the case at UW, where the declaration of a financial exigency rests with the President and is then either proven or disproven by the FEC. The concentration of power in one individual is concerning.
For Lecturers, it is also concerning that the hiring freeze put in place in the event of a financial exigency does not specify whether appointment renewals are considered as new hires and does not guarantee a right of recall. Given that approximately half of Lecturers hold definite-term contracts, such provisions are key. We have also discussed in our past post on Article 17 that definite-term lecturers are the most vulnerable faculty group when it comes to layoffs.
Comments