What Basic Agreement Negotiations Could Mean for Your Total Compensation
September 10, 2026
Some of you may be wondering why we are bargaining again right after ratifying the resolution of compensation and benefits negotiations. As a reminder, prior to settling the compensation negotiations, SFU served notice that it wished to re-open negotiations on the Basic Agreement itself. First negotiated in 1983, renewed once in 1991 and again just two years ago in 2024. Now SFU proposes to alter the Basic Agreement to remove any power APSA has to represent you properly.
Perhaps lost in our reporting of our compensation and benefits bargaining and our Basic Agreement negotiations is what the University’s Basic Agreement bargaining proposals would mean for you: for your terms and conditions of employment, including your total compensation package. We’ve spoken in general terms about the consequences of the University’s proposals, but what would happen to your interests if APSA accepted any or all of them?
Let me outline some key deletions the University proposes in the Basic Agreement.
DELETION ONE: ARBITRATION TO RESOLVE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS BARGAINING
Article 8 of the Basic Agreement lays out the requirements and procedures for APSA and SFU to negotiate compensation and benefits as we have done regularly for the last 40+ years. That article provides for a period of negotiation and then if no agreement is reached, rather than strike or lockout, the outstanding issues are put to an arbitrator under the ‘final offer selection’ process. This gives APSA some ability to attempt to match SFU’s employer bargaining power.
SFU now proposes to entirely delete article 8.7, which provides for the arbitration process. Instead, they wish to replace it with SFU’s own unilateral decision for the final outcome of compensation negotiations. They propose:
“ with consideration of the Association’s suggested amendments, if any, the University shall provide the Association with the final determination of the settlement outcome; where APSA’s suggested amendments are not adopted, the University shall provide written reasons.”
If APSA were to agree to SFU’s proposed amendments to article 8.7, the University can then just dictate the outcome of compensation negotiations. That is, dictate what your general wage increase or decrease will be and dictate what any benefits increases or decreases you may receive.
DELETION TWO: UNILATERAL CHANGES TO BENEFITS IN AD10 POLICIES
SFU proposes deleting Article 9.2 in the Basic Agreement which currently says:
No Unilateral Change on Existing Administrative and Professional Policies
The University agrees that, during the term of this Agreement, it will not change the benefits contained in existing AD10 policies except by mutual consent of the parties. The University reserves the right to change the language and/or the administrative procedures relative to those policies so long as the monetary and non-monetary benefits conferred remain unaltered.
This article is very important, because it means that the University can’t just unilaterally change the monetary and non-monetary benefits in the AD 10s: that is, your terms and conditions of employment, which include salary administration, vacation, sick leave, maternity benefits and so much else in your compensation package.
If article 9.2 were to be erased, as SFU proposes, the University can alter or delete the AD 10s as it sees fit. This would involve, unfortunately, the very benefit enhancements APSA negotiates on your behalf during bargaining.
An example: during the 2023 compensation bargaining, we negotiated how maternity top-up is paid out. APSA succeeded in having maternity top-up paid out in biweekly installments during your maternity/parental leave, rather than as a lump sum when you return to work. If article 9.2 were deleted, there’s nothing to stop SFU from changing top-up back to what it was prior to 2023.
There’s also nothing to stop the University from changing anything else in the AD 10s. This could include how much sick leave you can take; how much vacation you’re allotted and, possibly, even your ability to file a grievance if you disagree with something SFU has done. In an era of cost-cutting, we anticipate an erosion of benefits APSA members currently enjoy and rely on.
DELETION THREE: GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION
The third deletion proposed by SFU can be found in article 10 of the Basic Agreement, which outlines the grievance process to resolve disputes between the University and APSA. While I won’t quote the entire article, you can read it here.
SFU proposes to entirely delete article 10.4 ‘Grievance Arbitration’. Under the current wording, if we cannot resolve a grievance, it can be referred to an arbitrator for final and binding resolution. While APSA has taken only one grievance all the way to arbitration in recent years, our ability to do so means that it puts pressure on SFU to resolve matters in accordance with the rights negotiated in the Basic Agreement.
SFU now proposes to replace article 8.7 with a process whereby any dispute with APSA is resolved by the unilateral and sole decision of the Vice President, People, Equity and Inclusion. Their proposal reads as follows:
“If the response of the Vice President, People, Equity and Inclusion is not satisfactory to the Association, it may seek reconsideration of the response by resubmission to the Vice President, People, Equity and Inclusion, accompanied by reasons for seeking reconsideration.”
There would be no possibility of any third-party dispute resolution, no mediators or arbitrators to fairly and independently adjudicate disputes. Instead, the final arbiter of any disputes APSA or its members have with the University would be SFU!
Final Thoughts
As I hope I’ve outlined here, the major deletions SFU proposed to your rights in the Basic Agreement would have huge consequences for your terms and conditions of employment, including your compensation package. Preventing such outcomes is one of APSA’s key goals during our negotiations with SFU. We are not a union and don’t have the protection of the B.C. Labour Relations Code. APSA’s and our members’ rights exist under common law and our Basic Agreement contract with SFU. Our ability to protect members' rights and represent their interests lies solely in the rights previously negotiated in the Basic Agreement. Deletion of those rights as proposed by SFU means APSA cannot effectively represent you.
This week the parties have sought the assistance of a mediator as provided under Article 13 to resolve impasse in negotiations of the Basic Agreement itself. We hope that the mediator will be able to help SFU see the error of their ways. By the way, having a mediator assist us in Basic Agreement bargaining is another thing SFU proposes to delete.