Updates by proposal
you and your co-workers are bargaining for dignity in labour and learning
This page provides a timeline of our bargaining progress, sorted by proposal group! If you’re looking for the most recent update in one page, you can navigate to the bargaining blog.
Read our detailed bargaining proposals here:
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.
-
Monetary 1: Wages and Pay Equity
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We proposed our new pay scale system. Rather than our current 5 tier TA system (UTAII, UTAI, GTAII, GTAI, STA), we proposed a simplified three-step system. You can read more about the proposed system here.
The employer raised some questions about this system, including whether the transition to this system would necessitate differently sized wage increases for undergraduate and graduate students during the first year of our new collective agreement.
In response, we emphasized our commitment to seeking equal pay for equal work. Many undergraduate teaching assistants perform identical jobs to graduate teaching assistants, with the only difference being their degree status. Our proposal is intended to address these inequities.
We also discussed how we will calculate general wage increases for our members. We are still working on crunching these numbers and expect more back and forth on this at a later date.
Monetary 2: Health and Wellbeing
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We tabled a proposal asking that the employer allow members access to the staff health plan and pay for member health premiums, dental contributions, MSP fees, and the extended health plan provided by the University. We additionally proposed that if a member has an appointment during any portion of the academic year, they can enrol in the employer’s dental and extended benefits plan at their own cost for when they’re not actively employed as a member. Members have expressed that our student health plan is not sufficient at covering our needs, leaving students in precarious financial situations to decide between taking care of basic living costs and their health. This proposal is designed to better support our members’ wellbeing, health, and quality of life.
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We tabled a proposal that the University provide tuition waivers and reimbursement for any associated tuition and student fees for all members of our bargaining unit. This was a top priority of our bargaining survey sent out to our membership last year. As tuition is a condition of our employment as students, year by year, tuition increases represent bigger and bigger cuts to our paychecks.
Monetary 4: Ending Minimum Funding Clawback
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We tabled a letter of understanding aiming to end the inclusion of bargaining unit work in graduate student funding packages, a practice we refer to as “minimum funding clawback”. We seek that no more than the salary equivalent of a full GTA II (~$14.6k) of bargaining unit work may be included in any graduate student funding packages.
Funding clawbacks are used inconsistently across departments at the University to reduce graduate student funding packages. This practice differs greatly between faculties and even departments within faculties. For example, while the Department of Chemistry offers a minimum funding package of $27,000 for PhD students, PhD students may still be required to pursue a full TA position (making approximately ~$14-16k) as part of their minimum stipend package. However, in departments such as the Department of Mechanical Engineering, TA salaries are not part of graduate students’ stipend packages and constitute take-home money for graduate students on top of their stipend. Thus, minimum funding clawbacks create inequities of pay amongst our members while also keeping graduate student wages well below the livable wage in Vancouver. This is an issue that our members continually fight for and was a top priority from our bargaining survey.
As a reference, we presented language proposed in a 2024 Letter of Intent from CUPE 3902 at the University of Toronto, which has language protecting graduate students’ funding packages from being reduced by the University including their bargaining work salaries as part of their funding.
Monetary 5: Work Related Expenses
Status: Awaiting formal reply
On Monday we tabled a Letter of Understanding concerning members that are required to reside outside of metro Vancouver, which states that the University shall reimburse food and accommodation costs. This letter also includes options for the University to provide or reimburse members for late night transportation costs when reasonable.
Monetary 6: Guaranteed Union Office Space
Status: Awaiting formal reply
This proposal is about ensuring that the Union has access to a physical office space paid for by the University. We currently rent an office from the GSS, but you’ll find that student workers at other universities, like our comrades at CUPE 3902, are paid by their university to be able to rent a space near the University of Toronto. Our membership has grown in size and engagement over the last few years, and our executive, leadership, committee members and staff will continue to rely on a central space to organize as we continue to grow as a Union!
-
At the bargaining table, UBC presented to us their response package to the monetary proposals your negotiating team initially presented on April 20th.
Our monetary bargaining is bound by the Public Sector Employer’s Council (PSEC), which sets a standard for general wage increases (GWI) and non-wage increases to our contract. For this round of negotiations, these rates have been set at 3% GWI yearly over four years, with an additional 2% of what is colloquially known as “flex money” that is used for other improvements to our contract (e.g., healthcare).
In UBC’s response to our monetary proposals, they proposed a 3% GWI over four years, and a one-time targeted 5% increase for Undergraduate TAs. They claimed that these proposals maximized what they could afford within these percentage guidelines set by the government. However, not only did their proposals fall severely short of the PSEC funding, but they also refused to respond to any of our following proposals:
Our monetary package also includes proposals specific to members at the Center for Accessibility (CfA) and the English Language Institute (Component 2). Members at the CfA are asking for paid breaks, protections on workload, and expanded leaves. UBC was unwilling to entertain even our bare minimum proposals, such as paid breaks for exam invigilators. The University also is seeking concessions on sick leave (reducing the effective amount of sick leave that would be available) for our comrades at the English Language Institute (Component 2), and refuses to discuss any of our other monetary proposals for ELIs. Our union will never accept concessions in bargaining.
UBC’s persistent dismissal of our proposals is going to require creativity for us to make progress. We, as a community of student workers, have some big decisions to make about how to balance each of our bargaining priorities. Below you will find more detailed context from the negotiating committee of the major issues we are currently facing:
GAAs have been fighting for a contract since July 2023. We are in the process of setting a wage standard for the future of GAA positions at UBC. This is the only time that we will not be bound by percentage increases set by the provincial government via PSEC
UBC’s last offer for GAA wages was a minimum of approximately $27/hour. Their latest position is to delay setting a wage standard for GAAs until after bargaining concludes. This would mean that our strike power would be gone. In order to win the meaningful gains that hundreds of GAAs unionized for in 2023, the fight for GAA wages needs to be won during this round of bargaining.
UBC is not willing to discuss our simplified and equitable wage scale proposal, which would redefine wages based on the work performed. A revised wage scale is a priority for our members and we are working on a counter to UBC’s proposal, which only proposed some small adjustments to the present wage scale.
UBC has said that it will cost an excessive amount of money to cover tuition for all members. We expect that this will be an uphill battle.
Eliminating the Minimum Funding Clawback
UBC thinks this is a student issue, but unionized student workers at CUPE 3902 (U of T) won on this very issue through the power of their solidarity.
UBC has rejected our proposal to join the employee health and dental plans. The University thinks that CUPE 2278 members don’t need expanded health coverage because they have access to sufficient coverage through their parents or the AMS/GSS plan. “Ask your mom for health insurance” is not a reasonable bargaining position.
As a result of strategic pressure and strikes in the past, your union has achieved significant gains for member benefits. In 2003, UBC threatened to take away members’ original health fund, and your union went on strike to successfully protect this benefit. In the 2012 strike, a personal hardship fund was won. There have been further gains to these benefits since, with the funds now administered via the Health, Wellbeing, and Hardship Fund. The present round of bargaining is an opportunity for us to demand more.
-
Monetary 2: Health and Wellbeing
The University told us that our proposal on health care was impossible within the PSEC bargaining framework. We disagree. We will present a comprehensive breakdown of how it is possible at the next bargaining session.
Monetary 4: Ending Minimum Funding Clawback
In response to our ending minimum funding clawback proposal, UBC proposed a “Letter of Commitment” (i.e., not an enforceable piece of contract language). We don’t believe that this letter of commitment sufficiently protects CUPE 2278 members against funding clawbacks, and will respond to the University on July 3. When CUPE 2278 members get a union-negotiated wage increase or take on extra work so that they can afford the cost of living in Vancouver, they should not be met with decreases in other areas of their stipend.
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.
-
Equity 2: Disciplinary Procedures:
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We have proposed a new article in the collective agreement that outlines the process and timelines that needs to be followed when a disciplinary meeting is held.
Equity 3: Information Regarding Deaths in the University Community and Bereavement Expansion
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Your negotiating team tabled new language that would ensure the University informs our Union about the death of someone in the UBC community who works with members of our bargaining unit and expanding our bereavement leave to include the case of the death of a close colleague.
UBC raised concerns that the process of informing people about the death of a member of the University community is already outlined in one of their HR policies and that new language to our bereavement leave would make it accessible to too many people. Your negotiating team remains committed to developing a clearer and more compassionate process for when members are impacted by the death of someone at UBC
Status: Preparing response
UBC proposed one sentence in Article B1 that refers to the Senate Policy around Academic Freedom in response to our proposal for a new article enshrining academic freedom in the CA. Not only is it crucial that we have more robust and detailed language around academic freedom in our agreement, just like the UBC Faculty Association has, but we want to ensure that members will not be disciplined for exercising the right to academic freedom.
Equity 6: The University Will Inform the Union About Increased Policing:
Status: Preparing response
This proposal speaks to the frequency of elevated police presence on campus, and seeks to protect members who may have a historically and/or personally informed issue with that presence. This was already agreed to in the past by UBC via labour management, but we want to make sure it is enshrined in the collective agreement.
-
Equity 2: Disciplinary Procedures:
Although UBC continues to resist a specific timeline that disciplinary meetings might follow, they have agreed to giving members advance notice about the content of concerns around work performance and the reasons that investigations are occurring. We are preparing a response.
-
Equity 3: Information Regarding Deaths in the University Community and Bereavement Expansion
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Last time we discussed this proposal, the employer pointed us to an HR policy that outlines the process that the employer follows when a member of the university community passes away. Many of the items central to our proposal were not mentioned in this policy, specifically around notifying members about CUPE 2278 specific bereavement leave allocations and the Health, Wellbeing and Hardship Fund. We communicated this to the employer. Additionally, a steward joining us at the bargaining table spoke to the importance of this policy
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Last time we discussed this proposal, the employer responded by striking our proposed academic freedom language under the article regarding discipline (A 10) and added a reference to the UBC Senate Policy on academic freedom under Article B 1 (the article that outlines our protection from academic harm). We clarified that academic freedom is integral to the faculty association collective agreement, and that our intention with this proposal is to ensure that CUPE 2278 members are not disciplined in their employment relationship with the university for exercising their academic freedom. We are awaiting a formal response.
-
Equity 1: Anti-Discrimination Protections
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Previously, the Employer had indicated that they were not interested in adding the categories of caste and citizenship to our nondiscrimination language. This week, we presented more information on recent BC Human Rights Tribunal cases dealing with caste and cited examples of UBC job postings which indicate discrimination based on citizenship status.
The employer indicated that they are working on a reply for this proposal.
Equity 2: Disciplinary Procedures
Status: Agreed in principle
This proposal aimed to give CUPE 2278 members and the Union the opportunity to better prepare for and respond to disciplinary meetings as well as a sunset provision for disciplinary records to be removed from a members file after a fixed period of time.
On February 9th we agreed to the Employer’s language amendment where employees would be notified in advance of the general nature of concerns/dissatisfactions for disciplinary meetings. The Employer also agreed to our proposal for a sunset provision, meaning that after 24 months, disciplinary records will be removed from a member’s file.
Equity 3: Information Regarding Deaths in the University Community and Bereavement Expansion
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Last time we discussed this proposal, we pointed out that the employer’s HR policy about protocols when a member of the University Community passes away is inadequate for CUPE 2278 members and does not mention relevant resources (i.e., bereavement leave and the Health, Wellbeing, and Hardship fund). This time, the employer indicated that they would be open to amending their policy.
Regarding including “colleague” in the list of people for whom CUPE 2278 members can take bereavement leave, the employer suggested that this is a monetary item and should be discussed with our other monetary proposals. The employer also confirmed that in cases where members consider themselves to be close friends with their colleagues, bereavement leave applies.
Equity 4: Student Workers as Staff
Status: Awaiting monetary discussion
This proposal aims to give CUPE 2278 members access to the same benefits that other staff at UBC are entitled to (i.e., software licenses, reduced parking fees), but which our members currently cannot access because we are classified as “student staff” rather than “staff”. When we tabled this proposal, the Employer indicated that they think it is monetary and should be discussed with the other monetary proposals.
Status: Preparing response
Last time we discussed this proposal, we clarified that academic freedom is integral to the faculty association collective agreement, and that our intention with this proposal is to ensure that CUPE 2278 members are not disciplined in their employment relationship with the university for exercising their academic freedom. The employer today indicated that they think that the language describing Academic Freedom in the UBC Faculty Association Collective Agreement is not enforceable or grievable, and bad Collective Agreement Construction. They reiterated that they are not prepared to add any language to our collective agreement beyond identifying the senate policy on Academic Freedom.
A central issue of disagreement between your negotiating committee and UBC on Academic Freedom is the placement in the Collective Agreement. Our proposal puts it in Article A 10, which refers to discipline. This is based on our position that CUPE 2278 members should not be disciplined for exercising Academic Freedom in their positions as employees of the university (TA, GAA). The Employer has responded by putting a reference to the senate policy under the article that refers to protection from academic harm (i.e., student relationships to UBC cannot negatively impact employment and vice versa). We maintain our position that Academic Freedom is central to any employment in academic roles in the university, and a lack of protections from disciplinary action for exercising Academic Freedom makes CUPE 2278 members vulnerable.
-
Equity 1: Anti-Discrimination Protections
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Previously, the Employer had indicated that they were not interested in adding the categories of caste and citizenship to our nondiscrimination language. This week, we presented more information on recent BC Human Rights Tribunal cases dealing with caste and cited examples of UBC job postings which indicate discrimination based on citizenship status.
The employer indicated that they are working on a reply for this proposal.
Equity 2: Disciplinary Procedures
Status: Agreed in principle
This proposal aimed to give CUPE 2278 members and the Union the opportunity to better prepare for and respond to disciplinary meetings as well as a sunset provision for disciplinary records to be removed from a members file after a fixed period of time.
On February 9th we agreed to the Employer’s language amendment where employees would be notified in advance of the general nature of concerns/dissatisfactions for disciplinary meetings. The Employer also agreed to our proposal for a sunset provision, meaning that after 24 months, disciplinary records will be removed from a member’s file.
Equity 3: Information Regarding Deaths in the University Community and Bereavement Expansion
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Last time we discussed this proposal, we pointed out that the employer’s HR policy about protocols when a member of the University Community passes away is inadequate for CUPE 2278 members and does not mention relevant resources (i.e., bereavement leave and the Health, Wellbeing, and Hardship fund). This time, the employer indicated that they would be open to amending their policy.
Regarding including “colleague” in the list of people for whom CUPE 2278 members can take bereavement leave, the employer suggested that this is a monetary item and should be discussed with our other monetary proposals. The employer also confirmed that in cases where members consider themselves to be close friends with their colleagues, bereavement leave applies.
Equity 4: Student Workers as Staff
Status: Awaiting monetary discussion
This proposal aims to give CUPE 2278 members access to the same benefits that other staff at UBC are entitled to (i.e., software licenses, reduced parking fees), but which our members currently cannot access because we are classified as “student staff” rather than “staff”. When we tabled this proposal, the Employer indicated that they think it is monetary and should be discussed with the other monetary proposals.
Status: Preparing response
Last time we discussed this proposal, we clarified that academic freedom is integral to the faculty association collective agreement, and that our intention with this proposal is to ensure that CUPE 2278 members are not disciplined in their employment relationship with the university for exercising their academic freedom. The employer today indicated that they think that the language describing Academic Freedom in the UBC Faculty Association Collective Agreement is not enforceable or grievable, and bad Collective Agreement Construction. They reiterated that they are not prepared to add any language to our collective agreement beyond identifying the senate policy on Academic Freedom.
A central issue of disagreement between your negotiating committee and UBC on Academic Freedom is the placement in the Collective Agreement. Our proposal puts it in Article A 10, which refers to discipline. This is based on our position that CUPE 2278 members should not be disciplined for exercising Academic Freedom in their positions as employees of the university (TA, GAA). The Employer has responded by putting a reference to the senate policy under the article that refers to protection from academic harm (i.e., student relationships to UBC cannot negatively impact employment and vice versa). We maintain our position that Academic Freedom is central to any employment in academic roles in the university, and a lack of protections from disciplinary action for exercising Academic Freedom makes CUPE 2278 members vulnerable.
-
Equity 3: Information Regarding Deaths in the University Community and Bereavement Expansion
Status: Awaiting formal reply
In February, we retabled our proposal to the University about the importance of our membership being aware of deaths in the community and reminding members of resources available to them. The University pointed us to their HR policy, which currently does not ensure that CUPE 2278 members have access to the relevant resources. We were fortunate to have a steward at the table that spoke to the impact events like this have had on their department. After this, the University indicated they may be willing to update their HR policy to include procedures that are relevant to CUPE 2278 members. To hold them to their word, we tabled a letter of understanding that would ensure the University changes their HR policy around reporting deaths, providing details and notification of a death of a member in the community, including reference to resources, funds, and leaves available to members of 2278 and notifying the Union.
Equity 4: Student Workers as Staff (now as Monetary)
Status: Awaiting formal reply
This proposal was about ensuring that student workers have access to the same resources that other university staff can access (including reduced parking rates, software access, etc.). When we initially tabled this proposal on our first day of bargaining, the employer flagged it as a monetary item. We brought this back to the table on Monday, and are awaiting a response from the employer.
Equity 5: Academic Freedom Protections
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Here we proposed that student workers should not be disciplined for exercising their right to academic freedom in the collective agreement. The employer last time said they were not interested in additional language in the collective agreement other than a reference to the Senate Policy on Academic Freedom. We adjusted our language to refer to this senate policy under Article A 10 (which deals with discipline). We are awaiting a formal reply from the university.
Equity 6: The University Will Inform the Union About Increased Policing
Status: Preparing response
While we didn’t discuss this proposal on Monday, it didn’t make it into previous bargaining updates. After we initially tabled this proposal, the employer indicated that they aren’t interested in putting this into our collective agreement because they had already agreed to it in a labour management context. They also indicated that they would be willing to re-commit to informing the union about excessive police presence on campus. We are still discussing this proposal.
-
Equity 3: Information regarding deaths in the University community
The University tabled a letter that outlines a commitment to update their policies to ensure that our members are informed about the resources they can access in the event of the death of faculty or staff. Your bargaining team is glad to see that UBC is committed to making these changes, though we suggested some edits to the language in their letter so that it’s clearer and more specific: adhering to a timeline and necessarily involving your union in the process.
Equity 5: Academic freedom
The University has said they are no longer interested in discussing our proposal around academic freedom. Movement on this proposal is likely going to require pressure outside of the bargaining table. More on that below.
-
Equity 1 - No Discrimination
The University maintained their position on aligning the no discrimination language of the collective agreement with the BC Human Rights Code. We are disappointed that UBC is not interested in leading the way on fighting discrimination in the workplace. We are continuing discussion with the University to address specific concerns around language in UBC job postings which reference preferential hiring for Canadians and permanent residents, as well as seeking commitment from the University that caste-based discrimination will be recognized at least in alignment with a recent decision from the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
Equity 3: Information regarding deaths in the University community
The University has given a letter of commitment that they will update their procedures regarding the death of an employee so that such procedures reference information and resources relevant to CUPE 2278 members. The specific updates will be confirmed at a future Labour/Management meeting before implementation.
-
We signed off on the following:
No-discrimination: We have now signed off on Equity 1: Article A7: No-Discrimination. We originally proposed adding ‘citizenship’ and ‘caste’ to our existing no-discrimination language. UBC has been adamant that they are not interested in expanding the language of the Collective Agreement beyond what is currently in the BC Human Rights Code. While we are disappointed that UBC isn’t interested in this expansion, we have now agreed to update the no-discrimination language so that it includes reference to “any additional grounds” that may be set out in the Human Rights Code in the future. Your negotiating team has also pushed them to make commitments at the bargaining table that address concerns about citizenship and caste discrimination specifically.
Regarding citizenship, our proposal was designed to address standard language on Workday that states hiring preference is given to people with permanent residency or Canadian Citizenship. UBC has confirmed at the table that this language has been removed.
Regarding caste, during previous discussions, we had brought up the fact that caste discrimination was explicitly recognized by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in a 2023 decision. While UBC still doesn’t want to add ‘caste’ to our no-discrimination language, they have acknowledged that any decisions made by the BC Human Rights Tribunal would be considered when complaints are raised regarding discrimination.
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)
-
GAA 1: Continuing GAA Negotiations
Status: agreed to/awaiting formal reply.
From October 2024 to June 2025, we had variance negotiations with the employer regarding the newly organized Graduate Academic Assistants (GAAs). These negotiations concerned how to apply the existing collective agreement to GAAs. These negotiations previously broke down because the employer insisted on a definition of GAA that would exclude many GAAs from joining any union. While we are still addressing this issue at the BC Labour Relations Board, we have now continued negotiations on the GAA contract. The employer has now formally agreed to include all these previously agreed changes in the collective agreement. For more details on the agreed-to sections of the GAA agreement, we plan to post a more in-depth blog post in the next few days.
Status: Agreed in principle
We proposed to re-write language in Article A 2.01 that outlines which workers are covered by our collective agreement. Our proposal replaces a long list of job classifications with a reference to our Union Certification, which is a legal document issued by the Labour Board that outlines which groups of workers our union represents. After some discussion we’ve agreed to this in principle.
GAA 3: Work of the Bargaining Unit
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Last time, we brought a proposal making it clear that people’s status as members of the CUPE 2278 bargaining unit (i.e., union members) should be defined by the type of work they perform, not the source of where their salary comes from. This has been an ongoing issue where people whose jobs are funded through the Work Learn program but who do TA or GAA-related work have been excluded from union membership.
The university saw this proposal as an attempt to expand our bargaining unit; we clarified that this relates to people whose work is already covered by our collective agreement but have been misclassified. We re-introduced this language, this time in a Letter of Understanding.
GAA 4: Allocation of Hours and Work
Status: Greensheet
This proposal pretty much just unified and simplified the naming scheme for the “Allocation of Hours” form. Because GAAs have joined the union, having multiple different forms can be confusing for members. Moving forward, these forms will be called “GAA Allocation of Work” and “TA Allocation of Work”.
-
GAA 1: Continuing GAA negotiations
We are continuing GAA negotiations. On Monday, the University tabled some language around how Article B5 - Vacations applies to GAAs. We are close to an agreement on this article, but just need to clarify some of the specific language. The aim of this proposal is to ensure that GAAs are entitled to the same ratio of vacation hours as TAs currently have.
-
GAA 1: Continuing GAA negotiations
Sick Leave
We clarified our last proposal on sick leave for GAAs. We are seeking sick leave accrual in line with that for Teaching Assistants. We are also looking to streamline banking of sick leave between jobs, so that sick leave accrued as either a TA or a GAA may be used and tracked together. We see our proposal as simplifying the process for sick leave and removing administrative burden.
Vacations
We signed off on vacation language for GAAs! GAAs will be getting vacation at the same rate as Teaching Assistants. Vacation for GAAs is to be put on their Allocation of Work form at the beginning of their appointment (and every subsequent 12 months) with exact scheduling determined in conversation with their supervisor.
-
Greensheet: Article B 6: sick leave for Graduate Academic Assistants
We agreed that GAAs are entitled to the same rate of sick-leave accrual as teaching assistants and that GAA will also be able to bank their sick leave time up to 24 hours.
-
GAA Wages:
We had some discussion with UBC about GAA wages and possible outcomes. We will continue to work towards a fair agreement for GAAs. We hope to be able to share a more detailed update after the next bargaining session.
-
Healthcare and Monetary Package
Last time, the University held their position that adding CUPE 2278 members to the staff healthcare plan would be impossible. We disagree with that position, and to that effect, we presented a detailed and fully costed proposal that accounted for how the University can pay for our extended healthcare & dental plan proposal within the framework of the Public Sector Employers Council. We know that an employer provided healthcare plan is not only possible, but necessary. We are committed to getting us the care we need.
We hope that the University will return with a response that we can work with.
Ending Minimum Funding ClawbacksAt our last bargaining day, the University presented a letter of commitment regarding funding packages and their relationship to bargaining unit work. Today, we clarified with the employer the intent of their letter, confirming that they failed to address our concerns around funding clawbacks. Our proposal addresses two factors:
The practice of reducing members’ GRA or other funding in the event of a wage increase for CUPE 2278 jobs
The practice of reducing members’ GRA or other funding in the event that they take on an additional CUPE 2278 job.
The University’s most recent letter did not address either of these concerns, instead only stating that, on a one-time basis, CUPE 2278 wage increases shouldn’t be used to reduce the overall amount in someone’s funding package. This is already how funding guarantees work and does not provide any additional protection. We made it clear to the University that this is an important issue for CUPE 2278 members, and maintained our previous proposal.
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.
-
Education 1: Improving Training:
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We tabled a proposal that defines specific areas of paid, required training to new teaching assistants, which include pedagogical training, curriculum-specific training, de-escalation training, classroom management, EDI training, and workplace safety. We proposed changes to Article A 16.03 and Article B 8.01, both with the intent of expanding the scope of on-the-job training that the employer is required to provide to TAs. The employer had a few questions, but we are still awaiting a formal response on this proposal.
Education 2: Class Size to TA Hours Ratio
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We tabled another proposal for the employer to provide the union with information about historic averages as well as semesterly reports on student count to TA hour ratios for all course sections in order to prevent systemic decreases that impact the quality of undergraduate education. We also proposed that decreases in TA hour to student ratio in a specific course would be subject to a grievance. UBC responded with questions about such a grievance process and raised concerns about instances where changes may be tied to pedagogical improvements. We are awaiting a formal response from the employer on this proposal.
-
Education 1: Improving Training:
Status: Preparing Response
We heard back from the employer on our proposal for improving training. The employer doesn’t want to impose training requirements on departments. Additionally, they clarified that all required training, including workday modules, should be paid. We’re preparing a response on this proposal
Education 2: Class Size to TA Hours Ratio
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We addressed some questions from the employer about our proposal on class size to TA hours ratio. We will continue to discuss this proposal in upcoming bargaining sessions.
-
Education 1: Improving Training:
Status: Preparing Response
Last time, the employer confirmed that all mandatory training (including the required WorkDay safety training modules) is paid training and should be included in the allocation of work forms for our members. However, they didn’t agree to include some of the other areas we identified in our proposal (pedagogical training, curriculum-specific training, de-escalation training, classroom management, EDI training). The central point of disagreement is around what the university can require departments to provide to members as part of their mandatory training. They raised concerns that our proposals would put limits on the autonomy of departments to offer the training they deem necessary for TAs.
This time, we reiterated that our proposal aims to set a minimum for the baseline training that all departments should offer in order to properly prepare TAs to do their jobs (and that we aren’t aiming to restrict some of the high quality TA training programs that some departments already offer). We are awaiting a formal reply from the employer.
Education 2: Class Size to TA Hours Ratio
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Last time, we heard the employer’s concerns on the feasibility of tracking & gathering some of the data that we were requesting (on TA hours per lecture/lab/tutorial section). This time, we reintroduced our proposal with more clear language on the type of data we are requesting from the employer. We also introduced a clause that makes it clear that the university can’t decrease TA hour to student enrollment ratios over time, except in cases where they can demonstrate pedagogical improvement.
We are awaiting a response from the employer.
Education 3: AI and Technological Change
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We introduced our proposal aiming to introduce language dealing with CUPE 2278 members’ rights in the context of artificial intelligence and other technological changes. Our current collective agreement language on technological change (in Article A 13) has not been updated in a long time; with these changes we aim to bring the language in line with the current state of technology in 2026. We are awaiting a formal reply from the employer.
-
Education 1: Improving Training:
Status: Preparing Response
Last time, the employer confirmed that all mandatory training (including the required WorkDay safety training modules) is paid training and should be included in the allocation of work forms for our members. However, they didn’t agree to include some of the other areas we identified in our proposal (pedagogical training, curriculum-specific training, de-escalation training, classroom management, EDI training). The central point of disagreement is around what the university can require departments to provide to members as part of their mandatory training. They raised concerns that our proposals would put limits on the autonomy of departments to offer the training they deem necessary for TAs.
This time, we reiterated that our proposal aims to set a minimum for the baseline training that all departments should offer in order to properly prepare TAs to do their jobs (and that we aren’t aiming to restrict some of the high quality TA training programs that some departments already offer). We are awaiting a formal reply from the employer.
Education 2: Class Size to TA Hours Ratio
Status: Awaiting formal reply
Last time, we heard the employer’s concerns on the feasibility of tracking & gathering some of the data that we were requesting (on TA hours per lecture/lab/tutorial section). This time, we reintroduced our proposal with more clear language on the type of data we are requesting from the employer. We also introduced a clause that makes it clear that the university can’t decrease TA hour to student enrollment ratios over time, except in cases where they can demonstrate pedagogical improvement.
We are awaiting a response from the employer.
Education 3: AI and Technological Change
Status: Awaiting formal reply
We introduced our proposal aiming to introduce language dealing with CUPE 2278 members’ rights in the context of artificial intelligence and other technological changes. Our current collective agreement language on technological change (in Article A 13) has not been updated in a long time; with these changes we aim to bring the language in line with the current state of technology in 2026. We are awaiting a formal reply from the employer.
-
Education 1: Improving Training
Status: ! Pressure required
Last time, we reiterated our proposal to set a minimum for all TA training to include pedagogical and curriculum-specific training, de-escalation and classroom management training, and equity, diversity, and inclusion training. The University on Monday told us that they are not willing to expand any specifics about required training for TAs at the university.
We don’t anticipate the university moving on this proposal without significant pressure from our members and members of the university community. Quality training for TAs is an immensely important aspect of the quality of education at UBC, affecting not just CUPE 2278 members but also the students we serve.
Education 2: Class Size to TA Hours Ratio
Status: ! Pressure required
Last time, we re-introduced our proposal in response to some questions and concerns that the employer expressed over our original proposal. This time, they indicated that they are not interested in talking about maintaining reasonable class sizes at all.
We don’t anticipate the university moving on this proposal without significant pressure from our members and members of the university community. Over the course of the previous collective agreement, we have seen continued decrease in TA hours and increased enrollment in courses. These trends not only make TA jobs more difficult, but also prevent CUPE 2278 TAs from serving our students as they deserve.
-
Education 3: AI and Technological Change
Your bargaining team re-tabled our proposal around artificial intelligence and technological change. The University had a few questions about this proposal, but we expect a full response at a later bargaining date.
-
Education 1 - Improving Training
When we last discussed this proposal, the University indicated that they were not interested in further discussing TA training, and in particular some of the baseline topics that should be covered in TA training. We held two Bargaining Action Meetings (BAM!) to discuss this and two other issues. Last Wednesday, the University came back to the table, showing a renewed willingness to discuss this issue. We’ve made significant progress in ensuring that when departments offer TA trainings related to pedagogy/curriculum, de-escalation and classroom management, and EDI, these trainings should be scheduled as time worked and paid for TAs.
We expect the University to come back with a more thorough response in the next session, and we remain hopeful that they will show a genuine commitment to implementing more consistent, paid training for TAs across campus.Education 3: AI and Technological Change
Last time, we proposed a modified version of our original proposal to address some concerns that the University raised. This time, the University’s team came back with a proposal to establish a joint committee between the Union and the University to discuss implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) related to the work CUPE 2278 members do. We responded, emphasizing some key issues related to AI, including prohibiting the University from using AI for worker surveillance, management, discipline, and termination. Additionally, we emphasized the importance of ensuring that when AI implementation changes or displaces CUPE 2278 members’ jobs, workers are entitled to maintain preference for their positions and receive adequate training. We expect to hear back from the University next time.
-
Signed off:
Education 3: AI and technological change
The University agreed to stricter timelines for meetings around technological change. They also agreed that if members’ jobs are affected by technological change (including AI), they have the right to a meeting (with a Union representative present). If jobs are displaced, workers will also be entitled to preference for an equivalent position and paid training if required.
-
Education 2: Workload and Class Sizes
After we re-emphasized this issue in our response to the University on Monday, UBC proposed a Letter of Agreement that would enable individual members to raise workload concerns through the Labour Management Committee through the Union, after they had already raised it with their direct supervisor. UBC is trying to solve a systemic funding issue with individualized complaints.
We know that increasing workloads and class sizes as well as reductions in TA hours are impacting many departments across UBC. The University’s response today does not address our concerns. Most notably,it does not provide any enforcement mechanism to ensure that the quality of education at the University is not degraded in the future. We plan to respond to the University in our next bargaining session on July 3.
-
Class Sizes and Workload
We re-tabled our proposal on class size to TA hour ratios, maintaining the importance of having such a minimum, while also proposing language that allows departments to each set a standard on this ratio that is unique to their needs. We await the University’s response.
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.
-
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 ContinuationIn 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 UpdateWe 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)].
-
Procedural 7: Above 1.0 TA Appointments
Status: Agreed to
We reached an agreement for a new Letter of Understanding regarding TA appointments above 1.0 (192 hours) over a term. Some members have raised concerns about how these appointments are allotted – in particular, there are concerns that favouritism or other biases may be at play here. Our proposed Letter of Understanding ensures that our union is informed about these positions and, if requested, rationale for them is provided.
Procedural 4: Job Postings and Procedural 6: Preference Continuation
Status: Awaiting formal reply
One aim of our proposals is to ensure that you can understand how many hours you have preference for in a given academic year and that you are able to get the hours you are entitled to, especially if hours were reduced due to working as a sessional instructor or because of budgetary constraints. To these ends, we have now proposed a standardized application form and offer letters for Teaching Assistant positions.
-
Procedural 4: Job Postings and Procedural 6: Preference Continuation
We continue to discuss these proposals as a set, as they affect a group of collective agreement articles that depend on each other (namely, Articles B 3.01, B 3.02, and B 3.03). Last time, we proposed a standardized application form and offer letters for TA positions. While UBC was not keen to implement a standardized application for Teaching Assistant positions, we discussed future development of such an application process. For the time being, we have asked the employer for alternative ways to ensure teaching assistants are informed about their re-appointment rights.
-
Procedural 1: Definition of a Full TA Position
Status: GREENSHEET!
We signed off on Procedural 1 (changes to Article B 4.01 hours of work). We now have a coherent definition of full TA that reflects the four-month semester schedule that UBC uses.. We were also successful in eliminating confusing language like “exclusive quadruples”! These changes will help members and their departments be clear on when appointments should start and end, and what a “full TA” position actually means.
Procedural 4: Job Postings and Procedural 6: Preference Continuation
Status: Preparing Response
We heard back from the employer on Article B 3 (3.01, 3.02, 3.03), on Preference Continuation (Procedural 6), Job Postings (Procedural 4), and Job selection notification (postings have anticipated timeline of offers). While the employer did not agree to a centralized job posting location right away, we are talking about a Letter of Agreement (LOA) in which the employer would explore a centralized website throughout the duration of contract. We are continuing to work on finalizing the outstanding parts of this proposal.
-
Procedural 1: Definition of a Full TA Position
Status: GREENSHEET on February 9th
Relevant Collective Agreement Article: B 4.01
Procedural 2: Job Evaluation and Classifications
Status: Awaiting formal reply
UBC’s job classification system for student workers is confusing and inconsistently applied across the university, meaning that some people who do the work of TAs or GAAs get misclassified as non-unionized positions such as Graduate Research Assistants (GRAs) or Work Learns. The University even admitted in a BC Labour Relations Board hearing that many GRAs do the work of GAAs and should actually be re-classified as GAAs and therefore unionized with CUPE 2278. The University has agreed in principle that bargaining unit work should be defined by the work itself (and not the funding source); nevertheless, people whose GAA positions are funded through Work Learn funding are persistently excluded from our union.
To address these problems, we proposed establishing a joint committee between the Union and the Employer to review all GRA positions across the university and identify GRAs who do work that’s not related to their thesis (and therefore should be classified as GAAs). The committee would also review the HR process in WorkDay for Work Learn job creation and review GAA positions. The University responded with some questions about our proposal, and mentioned that it seemed like it would be a lot of work for them.
Procedural 3: TA Position vs. TAship
Status: GREENSHEET on October 8, 2025
Relevant Article:
We agreed to change the language in the CA from TAship to TA position to better align with the many positions members hold across the University and affirm that their work at TAs is work!As we work through bargaining, we are working on making this change everywhere it shows up in our CA.
Procedural 4: Job Postingsand Procedural 6: Preference Continuation
Status: GREENSHEET on March 9th
Relevant Articles: B 3.01, B 3.02, B 3.03
In this item, we addressed:
Maintaining preference for CUPE 2278 members who are forced to take a reduced appointment due to budgetary considerations or who decline a TA position due to working as a sessional instructor. The University agreed to language ensuring that folks who take reduced TA positions because of budgetary constraints maintain their original preference for 2 academic years, while folks who take a sessional instructor position maintain their TA preference for 1 academic year.
Centralized, accessible locations for job postings, and ensuring that each department only requires members to fill out one job application for all regular TA positions in that department, with a separate application for STA positions. The University agreed to provide more information in their job postings, including anticipated timelines of offers and reference to members’ rights to maintain preference in the event of budgetary constraints and/or accepting a sessional position. They also agreed to language that prevents departments from instituting separate job application forms for individual courses. Finally, they agreed to explore the possibility of having an online, centralized location for job postings across the university.
These changes to the job postings and preference language will make it easier for CUPE 2278 members to understand their rights to be reappointed and ensure that members are not unfairly denied TA work because of barriers to accessing or filling out the job application. We’ve also made substantial progress in pushing on the University to look into a central job posting portal for ALL TA positions across the University, which would simplify this process and ensure hiring transparency!
Procedural 5: Job Selection NotificationStatus: Agreed in principle (see above)
We identified this proposal because some departments fail to inform CUPE 2278 members who apply for a TA position if they don’t get the position. This leads to uncertainty for members about whether they will have income for an upcoming semester. While UBC was unwilling to agree to informing all applicants about whether they were successful or unsuccessful for a TA posting, they did agree to include an anticipated timeline of offers in the job posting language. This gives folks more information about when to expect job offers–and helps them follow up if they haven’t heard anything from their department.
Procedural 7: Above 1.0 TA Positions
Status: GREENSHEET on January 19th
Procedural 8: Whistleblower Protection Update
Status: GREENSHEET on February 2nd
-
Procedural 1: Definition of a Full TA Position
Status: GREENSHEET on February 9th
Relevant Collective Agreement Article: B 4.01
Procedural 2: Job Evaluation and Classifications
Status: Awaiting formal reply
UBC’s job classification system for student workers is confusing and inconsistently applied across the university, meaning that some people who do the work of TAs or GAAs get misclassified as non-unionized positions such as Graduate Research Assistants (GRAs) or Work Learns. The University even admitted in a BC Labour Relations Board hearing that many GRAs do the work of GAAs and should actually be re-classified as GAAs and therefore unionized with CUPE 2278. The University has agreed in principle that bargaining unit work should be defined by the work itself (and not the funding source); nevertheless, people whose GAA positions are funded through Work Learn funding are persistently excluded from our union.
To address these problems, we proposed establishing a joint committee between the Union and the Employer to review all GRA positions across the university and identify GRAs who do work that’s not related to their thesis (and therefore should be classified as GAAs). The committee would also review the HR process in WorkDay for Work Learn job creation and review GAA positions. The University responded with some questions about our proposal, and mentioned that it seemed like it would be a lot of work for them.
Procedural 3: TA Position vs. TAship
Status: GREENSHEET on October 8, 2025
Relevant Article:
We agreed to change the language in the CA from TAship to TA position to better align with the many positions members hold across the University and affirm that their work at TAs is work!As we work through bargaining, we are working on making this change everywhere it shows up in our CA.
Procedural 4: Job Postingsand Procedural 6: Preference Continuation
Status: GREENSHEET on March 9th
Relevant Articles: B 3.01, B 3.02, B 3.03
In this item, we addressed:
Maintaining preference for CUPE 2278 members who are forced to take a reduced appointment due to budgetary considerations or who decline a TA position due to working as a sessional instructor. The University agreed to language ensuring that folks who take reduced TA positions because of budgetary constraints maintain their original preference for 2 academic years, while folks who take a sessional instructor position maintain their TA preference for 1 academic year.
Centralized, accessible locations for job postings, and ensuring that each department only requires members to fill out one job application for all regular TA positions in that department, with a separate application for STA positions. The University agreed to provide more information in their job postings, including anticipated timelines of offers and reference to members’ rights to maintain preference in the event of budgetary constraints and/or accepting a sessional position. They also agreed to language that prevents departments from instituting separate job application forms for individual courses. Finally, they agreed to explore the possibility of having an online, centralized location for job postings across the university.
These changes to the job postings and preference language will make it easier for CUPE 2278 members to understand their rights to be reappointed and ensure that members are not unfairly denied TA work because of barriers to accessing or filling out the job application. We’ve also made substantial progress in pushing on the University to look into a central job posting portal for ALL TA positions across the University, which would simplify this process and ensure hiring transparency!
Procedural 5: Job Selection NotificationStatus: Agreed in principle (see above)
We identified this proposal because some departments fail to inform CUPE 2278 members who apply for a TA position if they don’t get the position. This leads to uncertainty for members about whether they will have income for an upcoming semester. While UBC was unwilling to agree to informing all applicants about whether they were successful or unsuccessful for a TA posting, they did agree to include an anticipated timeline of offers in the job posting language. This gives folks more information about when to expect job offers–and helps them follow up if they haven’t heard anything from their department.
Procedural 7: Above 1.0 TA Positions
Status: GREENSHEET on January 19th
Procedural 8: Whistleblower Protection Update
Status: GREENSHEET on February 2nd
-
Changes to Articles A 22.03 Reappointment and A 22.05 Pool of Preferred Candidates (Pool) have been agreed to in principle.
The University has maintained its position that Part B of the Collective Agreement should list all constituent workers -- Teaching Assistants, Graduate Academic Assistants, and CfA Exam Invigilators.
On the definition of Department, the University has proposed a definition that, although more expansive than the existing definition, is limited to only academic units. We initially proposed that the term “department” include all units in which bargaining unit members work. Though this may seem pedantic, the term Department is referenced dozens of times and has at least seven distinct meanings throughout the Collective Agreement! We also have members who work in non-academic units including at the First Nations House of Learning, St. John’s College, and the Centre for Accessibility.
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.
-
CfA 1: Shift Scheduling Procedure
Status: GREENSHEET!
We came to an agreement with the employer on an update to the way shifts will be scheduled and how those shifts will be posted to Exam Invigilators (Schedule B5 G). This ensures that when availability requests are made, they include the number of Exam Invigilators and Senior Exam Invigilators needed, as well as the number of scheduled exams that day. Workers at the CfA will also be able to give preference for morning and afternoon availability, double shifts, and Senior or regular shifts.
Status: GREENSHEET!
We were also able to come to an agreement on hiring/rehiring, training, and job postings (Schedule B5 A and B). The main changes include expected EI and Senior EI jobs being posted during the first two weeks of each academic term, final exam training being offered twice per academic term (with at least two weeks notice), and that when unexpected postings happen, they are also posted for the standard ten working days as was already the case for other job postings.
Letter of Agreement Re: Schedule B5, CfA
Status: GREENSHEET!
In addition to signing off on the above proposals, we also created a Letter of Agreement which states that, during the term of the next collective agreement, a Centre for Accessibility Workplace Committee (which is comprised of representatives from both the Union and Employer sides) works on developing equitable procedures for assigning shifts and tasks within those shifts, reviewing and updating procedures for addressing the challenging situations that arise on EI shifts and making that a part of training, and reviewing how new scheduling software is implemented for EIs.
After a productive bargaining session for Exam Invigilators, we now prepare to return to the table to discuss further on non-monetary proposals concerning other Component 1 members next Monday, March 9th! You can expect updates on that session later next week.In solidarity,
-
We tabled two proposals that cover Exam Invigilators at the Centre for Accessibility on the topics of paid breaks, minimum staffing levels, and shift premiums. We want to ensure EIs receive paid breaks scaled to their shift length (one 15 minute break for a regular shift and two 15 minute breaks for a double shift), with the inclusion of a paid 30-minute lunch break for shifts over 5 hours. We also want to ensure that our members at the CfA are well supported in their work by establishing a minimum staffing amount, which entitles members to extra pay if it is not met. Staffing concerns were a high priority for members who work at the Centre for Accessibility and the staff minimum and shift premium language seeks to resolve this.