The Units 1, 2, & 3 Bargaining Team (BT) had another eventful week at the bargaining table!
Bargaining – Monday, August 10, 2026
Artificial Intelligence
At Monday’s bargaining session, the morning discussion centered around the union’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) proposals — U1 10.05.7/U2 10.06.9/U3 15.08.3.
The employer’s side was skeptical about these proposals’ timing and substantive nature. The BT clarified to the employer that there actually had been conversations in the last bargaining round on AI, including intellectual property concerns, which did not match current employer responses. This betrayed the employer’s possible lack of engagement on the subject, since it was not in fact absent at the table prior to this round.
Regarding the AI proposals’ timing, the BT expressed how these proposals capture the contemporary landscape of rapidly evolving technology and resultant implications for the University’s AI use. The BT expressed concerns about the potential for AI to be implemented without active consideration for bargaining unit members’ knowledge, input, or consent, which could lead to consequences such as privacy concerns or changes in workload. The union maintained that the discussion of AI at the bargaining table was both appropriate and timely.
LSTAs, Benefits, and More Proposals
After lunch, the union presented proposals on the Conference Travel Fund (U2 15.17) and Tuition Waiver (U2 15.13/15.14), to which the employer had no response other than to say they would be addressed in the future. Proposals on Affirmative Action — U2 23.03/23.04 and Long-Service Teaching Appointments (LSTA) — U2 24.01, 24.05, 24.07, 24.08 garnered more substantial exchanges in relation to the program being deemed “sector-leading”, along with a commitment from the employer’s bargaining team to be responsive on these proposals in the future.
The afternoon discussion was dominated by the LSTA proposal and health benefits proposals. The employer expressed that they need to be fiscally responsible to fund the improvements the union is proposing but also cited the University’s current budgetary crisis. While fiscal constraints are real, the employer continues to manufacture precarious working conditions as a status quo. The union firmly maintained that members are not adequately consulted on university spending and budgetary matters, such as legal expenses or the potential opening of a new campus.
The BT held firm on the proposed improvements to health benefits packages. This is crucial given how most benefits for Units 1, 2, & 3 have not increased in 18 years and how an increase can also be a measure of healthcare prevention, one that is less costly than individual members taking on sick leave provisions.
Money Matters and More to Come
The employer’s bargaining team emphasized the importance of costing, especially given the university’s financial situation. The union provided examples of how the University could make better financial choices rather than offload the burden of costing onto precarious workers seeking stability and benefits. The employer then revealed that they had completed the costing of our monetary proposals and should be able to share that with the Union at our next meeting.
The pass backs from the employer were negligible. Most notably, the LSTA proposal was countered on Monday with merely a date change, which did not feel comprehensive enough to present in writing. The employer’s bargaining team felt the need to share this information to keep with a rhythm of negotiations where information can flow freely across the table. However, this is a good example of the ways in which the BT feels that the employer’s approach could use improvement. If the employer concretized a comprehensive proposal pass-back in writing, this would be more beneficial than piecemeal fragments that do not consider the rest of the union’s proposal package.
Bargaining – Thursday, August 13, 2026
LMC and Info Disclosure Issues
Thursday’s bargaining day began with a heated discussion about two major Units 1, 2, & 3 Labour-Management Committee (LMC) matters. One of these was an issue regarding accommodations for members and Employee Wellbeing. Union representatives stressed the need for these accommodation plans to occur in a timeline that matches Article 4.01 in the Collective Agreements, which states that accommodated work plans should be provided within 30 days.
The other serious LMC matter was the employer failing to substantiate why step 1 or step 2 grievances are being denied. What stood out in this discussion was how the employer did not have an answer or justification as to why this past practice of twenty years has now suddenly changed.
An agenda item relating to the employer’s Information Disclosure was another a heated topic. The disclosure data relating to the PhD Completion Fund was of uncertain accuracy, raising questions about its disbursal. The employer’s accounting for the fund’s utilization raised certain numerical red flags, which is concerning for such a crucial fund that members rely on for material support with finishing their PhDs. The employer took away these concerns to be followed up on soon.
Tutor Definitions
On Thursday, the BT presented important proposals on Tutor Definitions – U1 10.04.4 (+ T7 Accommodations) / U2 10.04.2. These comprised of five new definitions for tutor positions (one for Unit 1 and four for Unit 2). Right now, there are many tutors in Units 1 and 2 currently working without clear job descriptions. This lack of clarity is a problem for many reasons, leading to potential job classification disputes and ultimately more grievances. Reducing the number of grievances is a goal both the Union and the Employer have expressed interest in during this round of bargaining.
These tutor definition proposals provoked employer concerns about management rights, specifically that definitions for job classifications could potentially be too limiting. Still, the BT held its position that these tutor definitions require clarity to ensure workers know the scope of their duties and are being paid fairly for the number of hours they work in relation to those duties.
Further Discussions
The following proposals were presented without much response at all from the employer: Priority Pool — U1 12.03.1, LOA — U1 Additional Funding Priority Pool, Graduate Assistant Training Fund (GATF) – U3 31, CUPE 3903 UHIP Fund — U1 15.20 / U3 23.01. The employer was not ready to share their completed costing of our monetary proposals, but should be able to share that with the Union at a future meeting.
The day ended with a tense discussion about concessions. There is evidently a significant gap in the ways that the union and employer interpret what constitutes a concession in bargaining. This will be important to watch for, as the employer seems to be potentially interested in some kind of diminishment or re-working of the LSTA and Conversion program. CUPE 3903 has previously communicated to the employer that the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) National Executive Board maintains a strict no-concessions policy at the bargaining table. This policy directs local unions to reject employer demands for rollbacks, two-tier wage or benefit structures, and precarious employment models.
We encourage members to attend our upcoming bargaining sessions with the employer. While members cannot communicate directly to the employer at bargaining sessions, members can share their thoughts with the BT either on the BT Notepad (shared with those attending on Zoom) or by writing a note and providing it to any BT member in the room. You can also email the BT at bargaining@cupe3903.org.
Preparatory planning for these upcoming bargaining sessions and discussions of employer responses and pass-backs occur during the weekly BT meetings. The next BT meeting is Tuesday, August 18, 2026, from 11AM – 1PM. All upcoming meeting dates, in-person locations, and links can be found by visiting the CUPE 3903 calendar.
In solidarity,
CUPE 3903 Bargaining Team (Units 1, 2, & 3)
bargaining@cupe3903.org