Andrew Boden: APSA Executive Director

The APSA Basic Agreement Re-Opened: SFU’s Surprise Announcement During Salary and Benefits Negotiations

July 9, 2026

You may have already read SFU’s message to the community on June 26, 2026 that they want to re-open negotiations on the Basic Agreement (BA) with APSA, even though we just concluded a re-negotiation of the BA barely 2 years ago. Although we regularly conduct separate salary and benefits negotiations, prior to 2024 the parties had gone 33 years (since May 14, 1993) without the BA being re-negotiated.  

Unfortunately, we have serious concerns about this development:

  1. In our BA settlement 2 years ago, we agreed to re-start the Joint University Association Committee [JUAC].  This is the forum in which the APSA and SFU discuss and work to resolve any matter that is causing a problem for either of them.  Unfortunately, prior to 2024, JUAC had not met for several years.  Two separate arbitrators had suggested a new approach for JUAC using an external facilitator to mediate the process for at least a year and the parties agreed to this. We did so beginning November 28, 2024 and have held monthly meetings with the facilitator chairing them since then.  
    1. The process has gone extremely well and the JUAC log shows that in the year and half since November 2024, we have addressed 33 different things such as payroll issues, shift scheduling and position elimination matters.
    2. The parties are working so well within the JUAC framework that last month SFU and APSA agreed that we no longer need the facilitator to mediate the discussions.
  2. In spite of our joint commitment at JUAC to improve communications and address matters concerning either party, SFU has not once advised us that there is anything substantive in our fundamental relationship (i.e. the BA or the AD 10 policies) that might warrant renegotiation of the BA.  Although the University says it wants to “enhance the effectiveness of the agreement and ensure issues are addressed and resolved in a more timely, consistent, and sustainable way”, at this point we have no idea what might be on their minds. 
  3. The BA is structured in an unusual way.  Rather than having a fixed start and end date the BA automatically renews annually UNLESS either party serves notice prior to June 30th of any given year. Giving that notice triggers re-negotiation wherein if talks fail, the unresolved items are submitted to a mediation officer and recommendations are submitted for member ratification and BOG approval. One possible outcome is that either the relationship, the BA and/or both end on December 31st of that year. Although APSA takes the position the mediation and recommendation process demonstrates the agreement continues, a possible interpretation is that if negotiations fail, SFU can withdraw its recognition of APSA as bargaining agent for you our members and seemingly treat each of you as operating under common law with individual employment contracts.
  4. Given that prior to the 2024 BA negotiations, the parties had not re-opened that agreement since 1993, it’s unusual and unnecessary to renegotiate the BA so soon after our negotiations 2 years ago. It’s also disrespectful to the relationship with APSA to do so without first letting us know what is bothering SFU so much it wants to take such a significant and potentially, consequential step. 

Why could it be potentially such a consequential step? 

If SFU makes demands in the negotiations that are unacceptable to APSA and should the negotiations fail, SFU may insist that the result is that APSA is no longer an agent of our members.  Should APSA cease to exist as your representative and collective voice then members would likely only have two apparent choices going forward:

  1. Accept employment under the common law with an individual contract of employment without the protection of APSA and the strength of joint representation; OR
  2. Form another organization to represent you, which could include a union. The goal of such an organization is to balance the overwhelming power of an employer like SFU, which exists under common law and in individual contracts of employment alone.

What are the issues?

While some of you have asked what the issues are, SFU simply hasn’t told us why or what it wants to negotiate in the BA. SFU’s communication on the matter has sounded studiously benign and yet contains no specifics. From Dilson Rassier’s email of June 26, 2026.

This step reflects an opportunity to modernize the Basic Agreement and ensure it continues to serve APSA members effectively. In recent years, there have been signs that the current framework is not operating as intended. Our intent is to reset and strengthen the relationship, with a focus on clarity, fairness, and more effective processes moving forward.

As outlined above, though we meet regularly with the University in JUAC and with senior administration on a monthly basis, SFU hasn’t told us what “signs” about the “current framework [are] not operating as intended.” 

Some of you have been asking, of course, what we may expect come renegotiation time. While I would be speculating on SFU’s exact set of proposals, I’m not expecting that they’ll be good for APSA’s ability to advocate or negotiate on behalf of members like you. I base this on some of SFU’s proposals from 2024, which included among other things:

  1. Total removal of the cap of the number of APEX members relative to APSA members (that cap is currently set at 14.8%: so, if there are 1600 APSA members, the APEX group can be no more than 236 APEX members). Currently there are about 130 APEX members;
  2. Adjudication of individual grievances by SFU alone and not ultimately by a neutral, third-party arbitrator;
  3. Removal of language that prevents SFU from unilaterally changing non-monetary language in the AD 10 policies (i.e. your terms and conditions of employment)

Back to 2026 Basic Agreement negotiations…

APSA will obviously need to reassess what issues it may wish to address in this process.  

  1. Right now, we don’t believe we need to change the JUAC process of discussing matters of concern, but
  2. Certainly, we will look for ways to ensure that members are best protected from ill-advised or rash actions by SFU that don’t take into consideration the best interests of members like you.

We will be putting together a team to prepare to meet with SFU in these negotiations.  Hopefully, prior to that time the University will reveal what its underlying concerns are and what its end purpose is in re-opening the BA.

Last thoughts

Meanwhile, it’s important to remember that APSA’s most significant strength comes from members like you. If you’d like to keep a strong, independent APSA representing you and your interests, we’ll likely need your support come this important negotiating season. Please stay tuned.