From July 1 to October 9, Victoria University implemented its Attendance Awareness Program (AAP), which applied to all members of the United Steelworkers (USW) Local 1998 Victoria University bargaining unit. The unit’s members include food servers, cooks, and electricians.

Victoria University is one of U of T’s three federated colleges — along with the University of Trinity College and the University of St. Michael’s College — that operate independently from U of T.

Under the program, employees who are absent from work four or more times in a three month period will be entered into the program. The program has five stages — with the last stage resulting in the managers considering the employee’s termination. While the Program Policy & Manager Guide outlined that the program aimed to encourage employees to commit to regular attendance at work, it caused widespread concern among affected employees. 

Following a months-long campaign by the unit to cancel the program — arguing that it pressured sick employees to come to work — Victoria University’s management rescinded the AAP, after resetting the program’s start date to October 1. According to John Ankenman — president of both the USW Local 1998 and the Victoria University Unit — the college cited the union’s feedback as the reason for its decision to cancel. 

“This draconian program the [college] implemented really caused a great level of anxiety and stress for the employees,” he said in an interview with The Varsity.

“A streak of bad luck with people’s health”

Ankenman explained that he believes the college created the program due to their concerns about employees “abusing” the sick leave provision 14.05 outlined in the union’s collective agreement. The provision requires supporting medical documentation from employees who are on sick leave for more than seven days. 

However, Ankenman mentioned that during a round of collective bargaining last year, the college pressed the union to change the collective agreement to require medical documentation for sick leave of any length, including for just one day. The union ultimately refused to budge on this. Following this bargaining round, the college decided to implement the AAP program. 

According to Ankenman, the AAP caused concern for the union because the program did not distinguish between employees taking advantage of the sick leave provision and those who had otherwise perfect attendance, but had circumstances requiring them to take extra days off. 

Employees who were absent four or more times in a three-month span would be placed into the program. The program had a five-stage model, with entry into each subsequent stage resulting in employees receiving increasingly stricter warnings from managers. Stage five required managers to reassess the employee’s employment suitability and ultimately consider termination. The criteria for advancing to each subsequent stage remained the same as for entering the program: four or more absences in a quarter.

Ankenman noted that the program’s stage based structure meant that employees could be terminated in as little as a year and a half upon entering the program. “[That] could be just a streak of bad luck with people’s health,” he said.

The guide states that employees were afforded flexibility under extenuating circumstances, provided these circumstances were communicated to their manager or human resources partner.

The AAP applied only to members of the USW Local 1998 Victoria University bargaining unit and not to all employees of Victoria University. “The program was discriminatory against union members based on their union membership,” Ankenman said. 

The campaign

Upon receiving advance notice of the AAP in March, the unit immediately began efforts to combat the program. They argued that the program would cause employees to come to work while sick to avoid being placed in the program, which could also potentially spread illness throughout the community.

“We pointed out to [the college] that we have a significant number of our members who work in food services, who… cook the food that the students and residents eat every day,” Ankenman said. He explained that as a result of the program, he knew “as a fact [that] there were a significant number of employees who were coming in sick, possibly with COVID-19… [or] other respiratory diseases.” 

Additionally, the unit argued that part of the program violated the union’s collective agreement with the college. According to the program guide, employees in the third and fourth stage of the program would have their AAP status considered when being evaluated for promotions or other job positions within the college. 

While Ankenman stated that, “the collective agreement language that deals with job postings and the hiring process did not include any wording that would allow for [this rule],” the AAP guide stated that the program did not override or replace any part of the unit’s collective agreement with Victoria University.

After Victoria University implemented the program on July 1, the unit filed a policy grievance — a formal complaint — against the college on July 18, outlining their concerns. The union and the college held at least four meetings, including a grievance meeting on August 29. 

Alongside the policy grievance, the union launched a public campaign to build solidarity within the bargaining unit and among students and faculty. On September 27, the union set up a booth at Charles Street in front of the Isabel Bader Theatre to gather signatures for a petition against the AAP. The event lasted three hours and garnered 86 signatures from unit members and 52 signatures from students.

To new horizons

On October 9, the college sent out an email to the unit members informing them that the program had been officially rescinded. 

“I was a little surprised that it was rescinded,” Ankenman said. However, he noted that members were optimistic after their last meeting with the college in October and appreciated the support they were receiving from students.

A Victoria University employee — who requested anonymity due to fear of retribution — wrote to The Varsity in an email that, “We are all relieved, as we believe the program was unnecessarily punitive.” 

In an email to The Varsity, a spokesperson for Victoria University wrote that it made the decision to discontinue the program “after receiving valuable feedback from employees and USW.” They added that the college is now focused on supporting “our employees through their managers.”

Ankenman credits the college for listening to and fully engaging with the union’s arguments throughout the process. “The union’s last meeting with the [college] left us thinking that we had been heard,” he said.

“From the union’s point of view, the issue is resolved,” Ankenman said. “We’ll have to see how the [college] goes about implementing a program that’s focused on employees who they believe are possibly abusing the sick leave positions provision in the collective agreement.”

The Victoria University spokesperson wrote to The Varsity that, “Regular attendance at work is important for our students, who depend on us, and for our colleagues, who work alongside us. We are committed to fostering a healthy workplace where everyone feels they have the support they need to thrive.”