The first day was the strangest. After more than 30 years of signing collective agree­ments, faculty and librarians at the University of New Brunswick were on the picket lines in early January this year. Nobody had been there before, at least not at UNB, and everybody had things to learn.

At the main campuses in Fredericton and Saint John, there was the unexpected appearance of outside security guards, exiting their parked cars armed with notebooks. Right away, picket captains had to decide whether to give their names to a multinational security firm that helps handle, in their words, “business disruptions caused by labour disputes that threaten to shut down daily ope­rations, potentially forever.”

Of course, the striking members thought they were trying to improve UNB, not destroy it, and they were showing overwhelming support for their union, the Association of University of New Brunswick Teachers. When a vote was taken in December, more than 90 per cent of eligible members supported strike action.

Behind that vote was a consensus about the need for comparability with a group of 14 similar universities, already listed for many years in their collective agreement. There was also anxiety about the size and weight of the university’s administrative apparatus, which had come to outnumber the faculty. Moreover, audited financial statements were showing big surpluses in everything except the operating budget, and it seemed clear more must be done to recruit junior faculty and renew support for the core missions of teaching and research.

As often happens in labour disputes, the secondary issues kept getting in the way. When university officials announced they would not allow the union to pay members’ health care and insurance premiums during a stoppage, it took several days for them to back down. “I already knew the university did not value my research” one member told a union meeting, “Now I know they do not value my health.”

As in any job action, people were hurt. There was a level of cynicism in starting the term in January, with a strike deadline at the end of the first week. Once the university declared a lockout as well, students were left in jeopardy, not knowing how the stoppage would affect them and having trouble convincing the university to suspend deadlines for fees. Office staff worked in an eerie quiet; others, particularly in the cleaning and food services, were sent home or lost shifts.

Probably the biggest challenge for the union was to make their case to the general public. AUNBT kept up an active online presence, but the provincial media attacked professors for seeking what they described as a 24 per cent pay raise. The union argued that the numbers were large because UNB kept falling behind, but the numbers did not play well in a pro­vince where professors earn more than twice the average salary. In fact, the settlement was a much less dramatic 2.5 per cent tracking increase for each of the first two years, with tracking for another year and “catch up” for all three years to be settled by arbitration.

In a commentary on the provincial press, Tony Tremblay, Canada Research Chair in New Brunswick Studies at St. Thomas University, warned that the province’s future as a progressive and innovative community depended in part on standards of excellence set by institutions such as the universities. To disparage their efforts and insist that second or third rate status was acceptable was to normalize a “franchise of inferiority” for the province.

Certainly there was public support, particularly from unions who were also fighting disparities. This included other campus and faculty unions, as well as the New Brunswick Federation of Labour and CAUT. Support from the Nurses’ Union was particularly welcome because the university repeatedly called for nursing faculty to remain at work during the job action. There was also much student support on campus.

The provincial government waited cautiously, refusing to entertain back-to-work legislation when it was floated in the media by the university president on the first day of the strike. Ultimately, the province brought in an outside mediator to broker the agreement, which included strengthened language on comparability that the union considered to be essential.

There were also less definable gains. Walking on the picket lines, members learned that, whether they worked in libraries, labs or lecture halls, in the humanities, sciences or engineering, they shared similar concerns and hopes. One faculty member wrote that he had fallen in love with the idea of a stronger and more democratic UNB: “Let’s take back our university for the purpose it was originally intended.”

Was this confrontation necessary? At the very least it showed that faculty members support their union, and that they want UNB to remain a major research and teaching institution. The administration should have known that. Since the return to work, there has been a renewed level of restlessness in senates and faculty councils. It is too soon to tell if this winter’s events will be more than another episode in the long-running contest between administrators and faculty over who runs the university. But the issues matter too much and are not going to go away.

---------------------------------------------------------------
David Frank teaches Canadian history at the University of New Brunswick.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily CAUT.

Comment
CAUT welcomes articles between 800 and 1,500 words on contemporary issues directly related to post-secondary education. Articles should not deal with personal grievance cases nor with purely local issues. They should not be libellous or defamatory, abusive of individuals or groups, and should not make unsubstantiated allegations. They should be objective and on a political rather than a personal subject. A commentary is an opinion and not a “life story.” First person is not normally used. Articles may be in English or French, but will not be translated. Publication is at the sole discretion of CAUT. Commentary authors will be contacted only if their articles are accepted for publication. Commentary submissions should be sent to Liza Duhaime.