Planned Layoffs: A choice, not a Necessity

Dear colleagues,

As all of you are no doubt already aware, this past Friday afternoon, 69 of our colleagues received layoff notices.

The planned layoffs, if they are not rescinded, will be effective August 31, 2025. One person received notice of a partial layoff for August 31 and a further layoff of their remaining workload effective Dec 31, 2025, bringing the total to 70 layoff notices.

The layoff meetings were held en masse on Friday afternoon, in four large groups which the KFA officers attended. I do not need to tell you how difficult this was for all of the members receiving those notices and for us officers.

Friends, the KFA stands firm in opposition to these planned layoffs, and we are say the planned layoffs are not necessary.

The planned layoffs are a choice and not a necessity

Why do we say this? All of the information thus provided and all of the rationale thus presented does not add up to any kind of “necessity” to lay off faculty, so the planned layoffs are a matter of choice being made by administration. We base that on the following general points:

There is no fiscal necessity

In this current fiscal year, during which there was an estimated decline of international students totaling about 2000, there is a preliminary estimate of a budgetary surplus of about $10M. A further decline is projected for the upcoming fiscal of about 1500 international students. We believe the current year surplus can easily cover that additional decline.

So, where is the fiscal challenge coming from? We believe it is coming from a planned increase in administration.

The total for the real increase in administrative hires for the upcoming year is about $7.6M in planned hires. This is composed of a $2.6M planned spend in “one-time” administration hires, which is the figure included in the draft budget. But there is an additional $5M in hires planned and included in the draft budget.

How do we arrive at that?

First, we must note that the increases and decreases in the draft budget for 2025/26 are based on the draft budget for the 2024/25 fiscal year, *not the actuals* from 2024/25.

Next, we must note that for 2024/25, the year about to end, there is a surplus estimated at $10M. The Employer informed the Union in the layoff consultation meetings that all or most of the $10M surplus is arising from unfilled administrative positions that were planned for and included in the 2024/25 budget last year. Thus the claim of a $5M decrease in administration salary is patently false. It is a reduction of the previously planned increase, not a real reduction in existing administration.

In other words:

• They budgeted for $10M more in admin than they actually filled this current fiscal year 2024/25; and
• Instead of foregoing that increase in the face of the current challenges, they are foregoing only half of it and are planning to go ahead and fill $5M; and
• In addition, they are planning to add “one-time only” admin positions of about $2.6M (and we are told these “one-time” hires are in likelihood ongoing); and
• Thus, there is a total hiring plan of $7.6M in additional admin positions.

When we asked the direct question of the Employer, “Why not just leave these unfilled? Would that not address the issue?” their response was essentially “there’s lots of work for administrators to do.”

Simply not hiring all of the planned increases in administration will completely address the fiscal issues.

In combination with the hundreds of millions of dollars in accumulated surplus over the recent past years, all generated by the work of faculty, there is no fiscal necessity to take this extreme action of laying off faculty.

There need not be any “empty classrooms”

Another rationale provided by the Employer, and repeated by them in media statements, is that there will be “empty classrooms.” We say there is no need for there to be “empty classrooms” and it can be simply addressed by adjusting fill rates.

When we queried them on fill rates (number of students per course section) used to generate section cuts and faculty layoffs, they did not provide a coherent response, and when pressed, they said that they were generally basing the decreases on the historic fill rates from the past several years. We will remind everyone that these historic fill rates were based on unusually high demand which included course section over-enrollments based on Article 11.02 and LOU #11. These over-enrollments have contributed to the fill rates that are being used to estimate section cuts.

In other words:

• The planned layoffs are based on projected decreases in enrollment; and
• The projected decreases in enrollment are translated into course section cuts; and
• The translation into course section cuts is based on course section fill rates, or in other words, how many students have registered into similar course sections in the recent past; and
• The fill rates used for this calculation are based on recent historic rates that included unusually high overall demand as well as over-enrollments.

Thus, the simple expedient of adjusting fill rates slightly lower will entirely address the situation with lower international student numbers, without laying off any faculty. For example, instead of capping enrollments at 35, we can cap enrollments at 25 or another suitable figure. This will alleviate the situation by spreading out the enrollments amongst more sections.

So, there need not be any “empty classrooms,” and faculty do not need to be laid off in order to avoid these “empty classrooms” from occurring.

Where did we get our information?

Under the KPU-KFA Collective Agreement, if the Employer is planning to lay off faculty members, they must provide notice to the Union and must engage in consultation with the Union regarding the planned layoffs. The Union has an opportunity during this process to provide feedback and proposals, and the Employer must respond to the Union’s feedback and proposals. (For extra fun, you can read about this process under Article 7.01.)

I have provided for you here attached the details exchanged by the Employer and the Union, and here is a summary version:

Faculty Layoff Notification – January 2025

Enrolment Projections – KFA Feb 24 2025

2025-01-31 Fiscal 2025-26 Draft Budget Presentation V1.4 (KFA )

KFA Response to Planned Layoffs

Faculty Layoff Consultation Employer Response 03.10.2025

The Employer provided rationale for the planned layoffs in terms of enrollment reductions and of fiscal necessity. They provided a presentation and some documents summarizing their position on enrollment reductions, fiscal impacts, section reductions and faculty layoffs. (Please see the link above.) As per the above, we do not think they have adequately supported the planned layoffs on the basis either of fiscal necessity or “empty classrooms.”

(**Note well that during this process, the Employer did not provide specific or adequate information or rationale regarding either 1. the planned cuts to specific departments or 2. the planned layoff of individual faculty members. We have requested this information several times, both during that process and afterwards, and we are still waiting for it.)

The Union then provided a written response to them (Please see the link above). The Union’s response included the following proposals:

KFA Proposals

1.      The KFA proposes that no faculty layoff notices are issued, and no faculty layoffs occur in fiscal 2025/26.

If there is a real diminishment of enrollments or a projected further financial tightening over the longer term past fiscal 2025/26, the KFA furthermore proposes the following:

2.      Initiate and maintain a Strategic Enrollment Management Plan for the institution which has meaningful faculty input and is transparent to all.

3.      Initiate a hiring freeze on all excluded employee categories.

4.      Negotiate access to the large sums in the accumulated surplus as well as the remaining deferred proceeds of the land sale. Reductions in numbers of faculty, should they become necessary, should be achieved without issuing layoff notices, by attrition and/or by offering more retirement incentives.

5.      Adjust maximum enrollments in sections to spread out the student population amongst course sections and avoid class section cancellations.

6.      Provide a workload adjustment in the form of offering a “service section” to all faculty for the purpose of curriculum innovation and refreshment, and for other purposes such as program enhancement and recruitment efforts.

7.      Target the projected CPS growth to bargaining unit faculty workload to mitigate workload reductions.

In their written reply, the Employer declined to undertake any of the proposed actions or claimed in a somewhat indirect manner that they were already doing several of them. For example, they claimed they are working on a strategic enrollment management plan, but the Union has been advocating for this for quite some years, and we have seen no evidence of this being enacted. (Please see attached the details of their reply). As we all know, the Employer has proceeded with the layoff notices and they intend to carry out the layoffs.

The next step is for the KFA and the Employer to meet with a Labour Board appointed mediator to attempt resolution of the differences and to create an alternative plan. This is as per the Labour Code under Section 54.

The Planned Layoffs are a Choice, not a Necessity

Friends, I will say again: these planned layoffs are a choice, not a necessity. They are neither necessary nor reasonable. They are a choice among other options that the administration could take.

The KFA officers are working as hard as we can to turn back these planned layoffs and have as many as possible of the notices rescinded. I hope we can have all of them rescinded, but I don’t know for sure if we will.

But what I do know for sure is this:

All of us faculty can stand together in solidarity and oppose these unnecessary layoffs. Please keep your eyes open for the opportunities to help. I know everyone will do what you can.

In solidarity,

Diane Walsh on behalf of the KFA Officers

Mark Diotte

Marc Kampschuur

Rachelle Hollaway

Ann-Marie McClellan