Authorized for use only in the course GBUS 873 - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution at University of Regina taught

by Caroline Graves from 9/1/2023 to 12/22/2023.

9B15C005B

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATION AT THE UNIVERSITY

OF REGINA: GENERAL OVERVIEW AND PRIVATE INFORMATION –
FACULTY

Professors Ann Frost, Andrew Stevens and Chris Street wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors
do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain
names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality.

This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights

Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) [email protected]; www.iveycases.com.

Copyright © 2015, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation Version: 2015-03-25

INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 2014, the University of Regina administration and the University of Regina Faculty
Association (URFA, or Faculty Association) were getting ready to negotiate a new collective agreement
(CA) that covered academic staff at the University of Regina (U of R), which included about 442 full-
time faculty, instructors, laboratory instructors, librarians and approximately 571 sessional instructors.
When URFA’s executive elected its academic bargaining team in January of 2014, the legacy of the
previous round of negotiations loomed heavily over the U of R community. The current CA, scheduled to
expire at the end of June 2014, less than six months away, had just been ratified only six months earlier,
in July of 2013, after a long and arduous process that had lasted almost two years. Both URFA and the
University of Regina were eager to avoid repeating mistakes from the past and were committed to
reaching an agreement that advanced the interests of their respective constituencies and established
mandates. But in the background, some recent developments were affecting the climate of negotiations.
Politically, the U of R’s president had only recently survived a vote of non-confidence by the academic
staff while a smaller group of faculty, many of whom feared the downsizing of particular departments and
programs, had actively campaigned to scale back the size of the senior administration at the U of R.
Financially, the U of R president had just been granted a salary increase of 1.5 per cent and a $49,000 1
performance bonus. Finally, and perhaps most prejudicially, a recent botched firing attempt by the
administration at the nearby University of Saskatchewan had heightened attention to the protection of
academic freedom in university faculty contract negotiations.

BARGAINING LEGACY

When the previous round of collective bargaining had begun in December of 2011, almost six months
past the previous CA’s expiry date of July 1, 2011, a few members of the union’s negotiating team had
1
All currency amounts are shown in Canadian dollars.
Page 2 9B15C005B

expected that the process would conclude reasonably quickly. However, this was not to be the case as
negotiations dragged on for the next year and a half. Some of the delay in beginning the bargaining

Authorized for use only in the course GBUS 873 - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution at University of Regina taught by Caroline Graves from 9/1/2023 to 12/22/2023.
process was due to the time required to convene the respective management and union bargaining teams
over the summer months. However, a year later, in the fall of 2012, negotiations were still not complete,
and it appeared as though URFA and the U of R administration bargaining teams had reached an impasse.
Collectively, the two parties had ambitiously opened 19 articles for negotiation. Included in these articles
was a contentious clause regarding academic freedom, which had long been a subject of deep political
contest at the U of R and across Canadian post-secondary institutions. Negotiation sessions throughout
September of 2012 were rocky and marked by seemingly futile exchanges on three articles in the contract:
Article 2 (Academic Freedom section), Article 16 (Appointment Categories section) and Article 29
(Intellectual Property section). In October of 2012, the parties decided to put these contentious clauses on
hold and work on making progress in other areas.

In November of 2012, the union’s bargaining team was the first to provide the details of its monetary
proposals for benefits and compensation. Management, however, elected to wait and to not negotiate
monetary issues until other, non-monetary issues had been resolved. Over the next two months,
agreement on 10 out of the original 19 articles had been reached; so, by December of 2012, what

Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

remained to negotiate was language on nine articles: Article 2 (Academic Freedom section), Article 11
(Working Environment section), Article 14 (Nature Of Appointments section), Article 16 (Performance
Of Duties section), Article 17 (Performance Review section), Article 18 (Career Decisions section),
Article 23 (Benefits section), Article 29 (Intellectual Property section), Article 30 (Information
Technology And On-Line Courses section) And, Of Course, Appendix A (Compensation). Having
become frustrated with the pace of the negotiations over the previous 12 months, URFA’s bargaining
team changed its strategy, and the union’s negotiating committee notified management of its interest in
pursuing mediation to finish the contract talks. The union team simultaneously made an appeal to the
membership, seeking their support, going so far as to suggest the possible use of job action to mobilize
engagement. However, no strike vote was held, nor did the union executive officially endorse any job
action.

No further progress was made until April 15, 2013, when U of R management proposed a return to the
bargaining table to discuss compensation and set aside the nine remaining non-monetary articles until the
next round of bargaining, now only 12 months away. The union team welcomed a return to bargaining,
but insisted that all non-monetary articles were of equal importance and needed to be discussed.

Mediation was sought and began in May of 2013. Two full-day mediation sessions were scheduled for
May 27 and 28, 2013, with an additional date of May 29 included after the second day wrapped up. The
bargaining teams reached a tentative agreement on the third day, May 29th. Busy summer schedules and
final language changes delayed the process further, and it was not until July 15 that the union executive
was able to discuss, and ultimately recommend, the hard-fought agreement. Later that day, an online vote
was held with the academic bargaining unit voting to ratify the agreement.

Over the next two months, the union and management negotiators worked to finalize language and
conclude revisions to a new CA that would expire in 10 months.

FOUR MONTHS LATER

In January of 2014, URFA’s executive elected a fresh academic bargaining committee. Its initial task was
to review the current agreement and assess the outcome of the previous round of negotiations. Shortly
Page 3 9B15C005B

after the team was struck, informal conversations transpired between the union’s chief negotiator and the
U of R’s vice president of Faculty (the Provost). During these discussions, it was revealed that the

Authorized for use only in the course GBUS 873 - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution at University of Regina taught by Caroline Graves from 9/1/2023 to 12/22/2023.
university administration once again wanted to negotiate a compensation-only agreement. However, what
“compensation-only” would entail was not stated; what was evident was the interest on both sides of the
table in avoiding another multi-year bargaining process.

Management was being squeezed financially, and managing a budget in the current political climate had
proven difficult. Government funding was increasing at a slower rate relative to the increases in the U of
R’s existing financial obligations to faculty and to staff in other bargaining units. Meanwhile, URFA was
under pressure to represent the best interests of university faculty in such non-monetary issues as
academic freedom and the nature of the role of faculty in the university.

THE NEGOTIATION

With less than three months before the current CA expired, both sides needed to begin the process of
deciding on the next agreement. Both sides recognized that this round of negotiating would focus not only

Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

on the contents of the agreement but also on the quality of the relationship between the two parties. And
because the Faculty Association and the U of R administration recognized the importance of reaching a
settlement in a timely fashion, not all issues or articles listed in their respective mandates needed to be
opened for negotiations. Both teams needed to develop a strategy accordingly.

PRIVATE INFORMATION FOR FACULTY ASSOCIATION

There was no shortage of publicly available data for bargaining committees to consider, adding to the
challenge of formulating an effective strategy. The Faculty Association’s executive committee had given
its bargaining team a mandate to shape the trajectory of negotiations, so it was up to them to make sense
of the political and economic climate before going to the table.

Survey Results and Strategy Development

One of the union negotiating team’s first tasks was to develop an electronic bargaining survey and
distribute it to the membership. This normal and essential protocol helped the union executive to
determine the bargaining priorities and craft a strategy. The survey indicated that, predictably, wages and
salary ranked as the leading priority, followed in order by pensions, benefits, workload, governance,
workplace equity and non-salary financials. Approximately 15 per cent of the members responded to the
survey, which was comparable to previous response rates from other rounds of bargaining. Full-time
faculty constituted three-quarters of the respondents, followed by instructors, librarians and sessional
lecturers. The survey also collected open-ended comments, which identified members’ leading concerns
as academic freedom, governance, advances in wages, childcare, parental leave, workload, intellectual
property ownership, performance review, health benefits, governance, faculty association–management
relations and spousal hiring policies (see Exhibit 1).

Of these non-compensation priorities, advances in academic freedom language were likely to remain the
most contested and challenging demand. For a model of the preferred language regarding academic
freedom, the committee looked to other university collective agreements, in particular the language
achieved by URFA at Campion College (a university college federated with the University of Regina) in a
Page 4 9B15C005B

draft clause regarding academic freedom that in 2011, had been approved by the Canadian Association of
University Teachers (CAUT) (see Exhibit 2). Developments at the University of Saskatchewan (U of S)

Authorized for use only in the course GBUS 873 - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution at University of Regina taught by Caroline Graves from 9/1/2023 to 12/22/2023.
in 2014 had exposed the delicate and deeply political nature of academic freedom as both a principle and
workplace right secured through strong collective agreement language. International condemnation and
government intervention into university affairs followed attempts by the senior leadership at the U of S to
strip a dean (and professor) of both his management position and tenured faculty employment for
speaking out against budget cuts. When it was revealed that the university’s director of employee
relations had been the author of the dean’s termination letter, the resulting lack of confidence in
management’s capacity to respect academic freedom led to the resignation of the provost and the removal
of the president shortly after. Academic staff at the University of Regina were justifiably concerned about
the security of their own academic freedom in light of these developments at the province’s only other
university (see Exhibit 3).

Economic Conditions in Saskatchewan and Across Canada

Saskatchewan’s economy had been growing steadily for at least a decade. The province boasted one of

Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

the lowest unemployment rates in Canada, at around 3.4 per cent, and was second only to Alberta in terms
of provincial average weekly income. But the pace of economic development also meant that the overall
cost of living had soared. Since 2013, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in Saskatchewan had increased 2.3
per cent, compared with the Canadian average of 1.5 per cent. In Regina, the CPI had grown 2.4 per cent
in the same period (see Exhibit 4). In other words, Regina’s CPI of 2.4 per cent was comparable to the 2.5
per cent wage increase the U of R academic staff secured for 2013 (as of July 1, 2013), but exceeded the
1.5 per cent salary increase received in the final year of the collective agreement (as of July 1, 2014).
Still, these increases were on par with the major public sector wage settlements achieved throughout
Canada since 2012 (see Exhibit 5). According to a report published by the Canadian Association of
University Teachers (CAUT), settlements across Canadian universities in 2013 and 2014 ranged from a
wage freeze at the University of Calgary to 3.5 per cent (as of July 1, 2015) at l’Université Sainte-Anne,
with a great deal of variance in between. But without an established comparator group, it was up to the
union bargaining committee to set a standard.

The settlement reached by the U of S Faculty Association, just as bargaining at the U of R commenced,
would undoubtedly influence the expectations of the U of R Faculty Association. At the U of S, faculty
achieved a 7.25 per cent salary increase over three years (2.25 per cent for 2014/15, 2.25 per cent for
2015/16, 2.75 per cent for 2016/17) along with $1.2 million in base budget funds to distribute to female
faculty for present and past pay inequities on July 1, 2015. The U of S’s accountable professional expense
allowance also increased to $2,200. This fund was widely used by academic staff to purchase books,
professional memberships, travel to conferences and other employment-related expenses. Given that this
collective agreement was accomplished amid an anticipated operational budget deficit at the U of S, these
advances were remarkable.

Economic Conditions at the University of Regina

In its 2014 budget announcement, the Saskatchewan provincial government granted the University of
Regina a 2 per cent increase in operational funds (or $2.89 million), far below the U of R’s request of a 4
per cent increase. Student tuition, meanwhile, had increased 3.8 per cent to help finance the growing cost
of university operations and to balance the U of R’s $200 million annual budget (see Exhibit 6). Despite
these financial challenges, the U of R president, Vianne Timmons, received a 1.5 per cent pay raise and a
$49,000 performance bonus, equivalent to 14 per cent of her 2013/14 salary. This increase in
Page 5 9B15C005B

compensation was announced after the president had nearly lost a vote of non-confidence held by the U of
R council only months earlier. Salaries for out-of-scope employees, such as deans, vice-presidents,

Authorized for use only in the course GBUS 873 - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution at University of Regina taught by Caroline Graves from 9/1/2023 to 12/22/2023.
coaches and human resources staff, meanwhile, increased 2.9 per cent on average. Was this the same
percentage increase that the Faculty Association would likely be offered at the bargaining table?

The Faculty Association remained hopeful that salary and benefits advances could be made (see Exhibit
7). Faculties and academic units across campus would see a total budget increase of approximately $3.6
million (not including salary increases), while the U of R administration sought a 1 per cent budget
reduction for administrative units. Part of the strategy that the university deployed to balance the budget
had included the implementation of a voluntary retirement-incentive program, with anticipated annual
savings of about $1.5 million. The program was made possible by higher than anticipated 2013/14
enrolment revenues, which meant that student tuition would help to bankroll the retirement incentives.

The Faculty Association was angered that the program had been designed and introduced without any
consultation, another example of the extent to which the relationship between the U of R administration
and the URFA had deteriorated. And while the U of R administration had made some commitment to
replacing retiring faculty, there was no promise that future hires would be situated in the same

Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

departments and faculties that had lost employees through attrition. Regardless, any financial and non-
financial benefits achieved during negotiations could help the U of R’s competitive advantage in the
process of recruitment and hiring.
Page 6 9B15C005B

EXHIBIT 1: UNIVERSITY OF REGINA FACULTY ASSOCIATION’S BARGAINING PRIORITIES

Authorized for use only in the course GBUS 873 - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution at University of Regina taught by Caroline Graves from 9/1/2023 to 12/22/2023.
Faculty Association
# ISSUE Target (Interests) rank
Compensation – Salaries Annual raises of 2.5–5%
1 H
Appendix A (compensation and benefits issue)
Athletic memberships (equivalent to $361 per member) &
Compensation – Benefits Healthcare Spending Account increase of $250 (from $500 to
2 L
Article 23 $750)
(compensation and benefits issue)
Increase contribution to pension plan from 50/50 matching to
60/40, where 60% represents the employer’s contribution.
Currently, academic staff members contribute 7.5% of
Compensation – Pension
3 pensionable earnings to the defined contribution plan. Under the H
Article 23
proposed changes, the employee contribution would decrease to
6.5% while the employer’s contribution would increase to 8.5%.
(compensation and benefits issue)
Increase Accountable Professional Expense Accounts to be

Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

Compensation – non-salary
4 comparable to University of Saskatchewan (from $1,650 to M
Appendix A
$2,200 per year) (compensation and benefits issue)
Introduce specific terms of reference language reference for
Professional relationship
existing Joint URFA–Management Committee
5 between the parties H
(governance and administration issue)
Article 6
(faculty relations issue)
Short-term (1 year) if compensation-only contract
Length of agreement
6 Long-term (3 year) if more than compensation (governance and M
Article 28
administration issue)
Currently, online and distance courses that depend on
information technology for delivery are awarded 1.5 times the
normal credit hours assigned to a course, upon approval of the
Workload
7 Dean, who can change the credit hours at his or her discretion. H
Article 30
Faculty want to retain this 1.5 credit hour assignment, but want to
remove the ability of a Dean to arbitrarily change the 1.5 figure.
(compensation and benefits issue)
Maternity, adoption/parental leave benefits should be extended to
37 weeks; Supplementary Employment Benefits (SEB) increased
Workplace equity to 100 percent of the members’ earnings for maternity,
8 L
Article 24 adoption/parental leave. Since 2010, only 28 academic staff
members have taken maternity/parental leave. (compensation and
benefits issue)
Add specific language to the contract recognizing broader
Academic freedom coverage of “academic freedom” to include professional
9 H
Articles 2 & 29 activities and service
(governance and administration issue)
Based on a review of the operational forecast, it appears that the President’s Office has authorized a
budget increase of about $6.7 million to cover compensation and benefit cost increases across all the
employee groups for next fiscal year. In addition to the Faculty Association, the University must
eventually bargain with staff and building maintenance personnel.
Note: H = high priority; M = medium priority; L = low priority; URFA = University of Regina Faculty Association
Source: Personal notes of the authors.
Page 7 9B15C005B

EXHIBIT 2: ACADEMIC FREEDOM LANGUAGE IN THE CAMPION COLLEGE COLLECTIVE

AGREEMENT

Authorized for use only in the course GBUS 873 - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution at University of Regina taught by Caroline Graves from 9/1/2023 to 12/22/2023.
2.1.1 Academic freedom is essential to the functioning of a university, and to the teaching, research,
scholarship, professional activities, and service to the College and community. The parties agree that they
shall protect the academic freedom of each member of the academic staff.
Model Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) language:

The institution serves the common good of society, through searching for, and disseminating, knowledge,
and understanding and through fostering independent thinking and expression in academic staff and
students. These ends cannot be achieved without academic freedom. All academic staff members have the
right to academic freedom.

Academic freedom includes the right, without restriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom to teach and
discuss; freedom to carry out research and disseminate and publish the results thereof; freedom to produce
and perform creative works; freedom to engage in service to the institution and the community; freedom
to express one’s opinion about the institution, its administration, and the system in which one works;

Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

freedom to acquire, preserve, and provide access to documentary material in all formats; and freedom to
participate in professional and representative academic bodies. Academic freedom always entails freedom
from institutional censorship.

Academic freedom does not require neutrality on the part of the individual. Academic freedom makes
intellectual discourse, critique, and commitment possible. All academic staff members have the right to
fulfill their functions without reprisal or repression by the employer, the state, or any other source.

All academic staff members have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression,
assembly, and association and the right to liberty and security of the person and freedom of movement.
Academic staff members must not be hindered or impeded in exercising their civil rights as individuals,
including the right to contribute to social change through free expression of opinion on matters of public
interest. Academic staff members must not suffer any institutional penalties because of the exercise of
such rights.

Academic staff members are entitled to have representatives on and to participate in collegial governing
bodies in accordance with their role in the fulfilment of the institution’s academic and educational
mission. Academic staff members shall constitute at least a majority on committees or collegial governing
bodies responsible for academic matters including but not limited to curriculum, assessment procedures
and standards, appointment, tenure and promotion.

Academic freedom is a right of members of the academic staff, not of the institution. The employer shall
not abridge academic freedom on any grounds, including claims of institutional autonomy.

Source: Campion College collective agreement, Article 2 – Academic Freedom and Responsibilities.
Page 8 9B15C005B

EXHIBIT 3: ONLINE DISCUSSION ABOUT ACADEMIC FREEDOM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF

SASKATCHEWAN

Authorized for use only in the course GBUS 873 - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution at University of Regina taught by Caroline Graves from 9/1/2023 to 12/22/2023.
Strategic Plan Discussion Forum => Events at the University of Saskatchewan
2
by John Taciq - Monday, 26 May 2014, 3:43 PM
3 4
Logan (and Liam),

I know this is not particularly clever, but it is an inherent truth that we all view the world through our own lens – the
articles that Logan has mentioned in his response to my posting are ones I have read as well, and I arrive at a
different interpretation than is being made. I do not see these previous writings as providing a definitive viewpoint that
we must conflate the concepts of academic freedom, collegial governance, and freedom of speech together. In
particular, I believe there is some merit in keeping academic freedom and freedom of speech separated. And Liam,
please note that this in no way is an attempt at restricting your freedom of speech. In fact, what I am suggesting is
quite the opposite – that when deemed by you to be appropriate and contributory, you have both the right and the
responsibility to speak freely without fear of institutional consequences, even when that contribution could be deemed
outside of your academic expertise.

As I look through the different writings on this topic, what I see is an understanding that we have rights as academics
and we have rights as citizens, with the proviso that we should be free to engage in both without institutional penalty.
I find it interesting that the CAUT Policy Statement on Academic Freedom uses the term “academic freedom” in 5 of

Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

the 6 clauses, with the exception being the clause dealing with our rights as citizens. The title of the statement
notwithstanding, I interpret this as an indication of the separation of the two concepts. In fact, what I view as the
message being conveyed is that, because I am an academic, I should not have my rights as a citizen restricted or
interfered with which is qualitatively different concept than the rights I have as an academic to freely engage in
teaching, research, and service.

Your argument, Logan, seems to hinge on two points – one, despite the protections offered through our Charter
rights, we may still be subject to punishment (be fired) if the University believes our engagement as a citizen is not in
the best interest of the institution and two, it is disingenuous and potentially flawed to try and distinguish our
contributions as academics from our contributions as a citizen, given the “interconnectedness of knowledge” as
argued by Arthurs. To the first point, I agree that there needs to be a statement protecting faculty from repercussions
by the institution when engaging in our rights as citizens, given that the engagement is done responsibly and legally
(and let’s not argue over when civil disobedience is justified – that is a whole different topic!). That is why the
statement in the CA was included, not to reassert a legal right, but to ensure the University will not act negatively in
this situation. This is a basic right that all people should have, not just academics.

To the second point – I am not sure it would be that difficult to understand when my contributions to society are
through my engagement as an academic, and when it is as a citizen. I guess in a blunt way, I might ask if what you
have done was included on your AIF and became part of your performance review, but, although I have been part of
some interesting discussions, I have never struggled to understand when I am engaged as an academic, and when
what I am doing is outside of that role. I have no quarrel with Arthur’s argument for the interconnectedness of
knowledge, but this interconnectedness lies within us as an academy, not us as individuals. Our training (and I use
that word purposely as opposed to education) as Ph.D.s create a level of knowledge that is deep and narrow which,
when combined with others in the Academy, create the intellectual consciousness of our society. There is a whole
other discussion that can emerge here regarding the structure of Ph.D. programs, and interdisciplinarity, but suffice it
to say that we are all intelligent individuals (both inside and outside the Academy), but that intelligence has limits –
too often I have been reminded of what I do not know!

2
Former Dean and member of management’s previous bargaining team.
3
Former member of URFA’s previous bargaining team.
4
Faculty member.
Page 9 9B15C005B

EXHIBIT 3 (CONTINUED)

Authorized for use only in the course GBUS 873 - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution at University of Regina taught by Caroline Graves from 9/1/2023 to 12/22/2023.
To bring this to a point – academic freedom is an important concept that allows me to be engaged freely as an
academic, in a manner I believe to be most appropriate, including providing important social commentary, protected
from interference or censure from within or outside of the institution, but is a right I have when engaged as an
academic. This engagement is functionally limited by knowledge and expertise gained through my training as an
academic. Because of this, my expectation is that if my academic freedom is challenged, I would fully expect the
University not to just support my rights under academic freedom but to tangibly defend those rights. Because I
happen to be a naturally curious and inquisitive person, with some transferable skills, I may make contributions to
society that go outside of my academic role and expertise, and when I do, my protections come from the Charter
rights and as you have mentioned, from the legal system. If my rights are challenged under the Charter, my
expectations of the University are that they will not punish me but I would not expect the University to provide tangible
protection. Because of these differences in both the concepts of academic freedom and Freedom of Speech, and in
the expectations of the University in both cases, it seems useful to keep these concepts clear and not conflated. As
an end point – from a practical perspective, we are in agreement with how we should engage with society, both as
academics and citizens, and I think we agree with how we are protected in that engagement and what is the
University’s responsibilities. I have just never found value in the conflation of concepts and ideas.

Strategic Plan Discussion Forum -> Events at the University of Saskatchewan, -> Re: Events at the University of
Saskatchewan,

Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

by John Taciq - Tuesday, 20 May 2014, 11:28 AM

Logan,

With fear of reprising our discussions during the previous round of bargaining, I feel compelled to respond to your
posting - probably more for some clarification than anything. My question is why do we need to group all the rights we
enjoy under the banner of academic freedom? First, I need to point out that I have no disagreement with you
regarding the rights that we do have, and the protections that are an inherent part of those rights. We have the right
to engage in teaching, research, and the community service that springs from that unencumbered, free from censure
or punishment regardless of whether our ideas or methods fit within prescribed doctrines or current mores. We have
the right to participate in institutional governance, which entails the freedom to express openly our opinions regarding
the administration of our institutions and the system in which we work. We also have the right to be fully engaged in
our society as citizens, to have freedom of assembly, to express opinions on issues that affect our society, whether
within our academic expertise or not. An important element underlying each of these rights is that I will be free of
institutional penalties when I engage in these activities - given that I also accept the responsibilities that come with
these rights, particular as Hirsch is pointing out, to engage in these activities in a responsible way, which I hope will
include being honest, respectful, positive, and constructive. The challenge I have in grouping all of these rights - the
right to teach, do research, and community service freely, the right to engage in collegial governance (the key
principle that separates our organization from corporations), and the right to participate fully as a citizen - under the
banner of academic freedom is that, although each have similarities, there are also substantive differences as well,
particularly with respect to the recourse that is available to me when my rights are violated. Because of this, I have
found it helpful to keep these different areas of rights separate in my mind and have concerns when it is all grouped
under the label "academic freedom". In particular, if I decide to participate in a march protesting the increasing plight
of homelessness in our city, or write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper complaining about the terrible transit
system in the city, why is my right to do this labelled an "academic" freedom? Does this imply that I can only
participate in those activities because of my status as an academic? I do want the institution to acknowledge my right
as a citizen, and provide assurance that I will not suffer institutional penalties as a result of my engagement as a
citizen, but why does this need to be included in a statement of academic freedoms? Is there not some value in
identifying and clarifying our rights and responsibilities in each of these different areas clearly and separately? From
my perspective, there are two inviolate principles that allow our universities to fulfill their mandate to society - that of
academic freedom (our rights and responsibilities that underlie our engagement in teaching, research, and
community service) and collegial governance (in the truest sense - the sharing of power and the importance of
working as a collective). I also expect to be able to engage fully as a citizen in society, regardless of who is my
employer and not have my source of employment at risk because of this. Where I am unclear is the value of labeling
all of this as "academic". By bringing these different rights together under a common banner, we may risk decreasing
the value, importance, and understanding of each.

Note: CAUT = Canadian Association of University Teachers; CA = collective agreement; AIF = Annual Information Form
Source: Excerpts from an on-line discussion forum. Names have been changed to protect the identity of specific faculty
members.
Page 10 9B15C005B

EXHIBIT 4: CANADA’S CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, BY PROVINCE, 12-MONTH % CHANGE

Authorized for use only in the course GBUS 873 - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution at University of Regina taught by Caroline Graves from 9/1/2023 to 12/22/2023.
Region 2013 April 2014 May 2014
Canada 0.9% 2% 2.3%
Newfoundland & 1.7% 2.3% 2.6%
Labrador
PEI 2.0% 1.5% 2.1%
Nova Scotia 1.2% 1.8% 2.5%
New Brunswick 0.8% 1.8% 2.2%
Quebec 0.7% 1.3% 1.6%
Ontario 1.0% 2.4% 2.8%
Manitoba 2.2% 2.3% 2.6%
Saskatchewan 1.5% 2.8% 2.5%
Alberta 1.4% 2.7% 2.5%
British Columbia –0.1% 1.5% 1.5%
Source: CAUT Facts & Figures Report, 15:1, May 2014; Statistics Canada, Consumer Price Index 2014,
www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140620/dq140620a-eng.htm, accessed March 5, 2015.

Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

EXHIBIT 5: CANADA’S MAJOR WAGE SETTLEMENTS, 2012–2014, % CHANGE

Year All Sectors Public Sector Private Sector Education

2012 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5%
2013 1.4% 1% 2.2% 0.7%
2014 1.6% 1.6% 1.9% 1.6%
Source: CAUT Facts & Figures Report, 15:1, May 2014; Government of Canada, Labour Program, “Wage Settlements”,
www.labour.gc.ca/eng/resources/info/datas/wages/index.shtml, accessed March 5, 2015.
 Page 11

Source: The University of Regina’s Operations Forecast, 2015/16.

EXHIBIT 6: UNIVERSITY OF REGINA’S OPERATIONAL BUDGET FORECAST, 2015/16
9B15C005B

Authorized for use only in the course GBUS 873 - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution at University of Regina taught by Caroline Graves from 9/1/2023 to 12/22/2023.
Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.
Page 12 9B15C005B

EXHIBIT 7: UNIVERSITY OF REGINA FACULTY ASSOCIATION’S PROPOSAL COSTING

Authorized for use only in the course GBUS 873 - Negotiation & Conflict Resolution at University of Regina taught by Caroline Graves from 9/1/2023 to 12/22/2023.
Annual Cost
Issue Target
Increase
Compensation – Salaries (Appendix A)
Each 1% increase represents an estimated annual $560,000 increase
to the annual budget
Compensation – Benefits (Article 23) – Athletic memberships
100% membership reimbursement for all faculty represents an annual
$100,000 increase to the annual budget based on anticipated usage
Compensation – Benefits (Article 23) – Healthcare Spending Account
Each $100 increase represents a $77,000 increase to the annual
budget
Compensation – non-salary (Appendix A) – APEA
Each $100 increase represents a $42,000 increase to the annual
budget
Professional relationship between the parties (Article 6) – Introduce

Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

specific terms of reference language reference for existing Joint
URFA–Management Committee
Non-financial – No cost to employer
Length of agreement (Article 28) – Short-term (1 year) or Long-term
(3 year) Non-financial – No cost to employer
Workload (Article 30) – Retain 1.5 credit hour assignment, remove the
ability of a Dean to arbitrarily change the 1.5 figure.
Non-financial – No cost to employer
Workplace equity (Article 24) – Supplementary Employment Benefits
(SEB) increased from 90% (current percentage) to 100% of the
members’ earnings for maternity, adoption/parental leave.
Because this is supplemental, the benefit is anticipated to be cost
neutral
Academic Freedom (Articles 2 & 29) – Add specific language to
include professional activities and service
Non-financial – No cost to employer
$
TOTAL ANNUAL INCREASED COST OF URFA PROPOSAL

Note: APEA = Accountable Professional Expense Allowance; URFA = University of Regina Faculty Association
Source: Personal notes of the author; Costing information budget details provided by the employer.