The Canadian Journal of Higher Education La revue canadienne d'enseignement supérieur Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 pages 7 9 - 1 0 2 Part-time and Limited-term Faculty in Alberta's Colleges BOB BARNETSON* Edmonton, Alberta ABSTRACT This paper argues that the number of part-time and limited-term faculty in Alberta's (Canada) public colleges and technical institutes and their substantially different e m p l o y m e n t conditions indicate the exist e n c e of a d u a l l a b o u r m a r k e t at f i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s . F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s demonstrates that w o m e n disproportionately receive part-time and limited-term appointments. RÉSUMÉ Cet article démontre que le nombre de professeurs à temps partiel et à contrat dans les collèges publiques et les institutions techniques en Alberta (Canada), de m ê m e que leurs conditions d ' e m b a u c h e qui d i f f è r e n t grandement, soutiennent l'existence d ' u n double m a r c h é du travail dans cinq institutions. Des analyses plus approfondies démontrent que les f e m m e s reçoivent, de façon disproportionnée, des désignations d ' e m p l o i à temps partiel et à durée limitée. * The author would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Marianne Sorensen (Athabasca University) and two anonymous reviewers in the preparation of this paper. 80 B. Barnetson INTRODUCTION A n e c d o t a l reports r e g a r d i n g the g r o w i n g use and g e n d e r e d n a t u r e d o f p a r t - t i m e and l i m i t e d - t e r m f a c u l t y a p p o i n t m e n t s in A l b e r t a ' s p u b l i c colleges a n d technical institutes resulted in a S e p t e m b e r 1999 study o f n o n r e g u l a r instructional a p p o i n t m e n t s ( N R I A s ) . This study d e t e r m i n e d that, p r o v i n c i a l l y , 4 4 . 0 % of f a c u l t y m e m b e r s w e r e e m p l o y e d o n a p a r t - t i m e b a s i s (i.e., carry less t h a n 1 0 0 % of the n o r m a l w o r k l o a d ) a n d 5 0 . 4 % w e r e e m p l o y e d on a l i m i t e d - t e r m basis (i.e., are e m p l o y e d on f i x e d - t e r m contracts). T h i s study also c o n f i r m e d that w o m e n disproportionately r e c e i v e d N R I A s a n d that a dual labour m a r k e t existed at 5 of 17 institutions. BACKGROUND A l b e r t a ' s 1 1 5 , 0 0 0 f u l l - t i m e e q u i v a l e n t p o s t s e c o n d a r y s t u d e n t s are s e r v e d b y a p u b l i c l y f u n d e d p o s t s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n s y s t e m that c o m p r i s e s f o u r universities, f i f t e e n t w o - y e a r colleges, t w o technical institutes a n d the B a n f f Centre. A l b e r t a n s can also access five church-affiliated u n i versity c o l l e g e s that grant degrees, a large apprenticeship training s y s t e m a n d o v e r 100 private vocational schools. G o v e r n m e n t fiscal transfers to institutions totaled $ 9 9 6 million in 1999 (Alberta Learning, 2000). A s o u t l i n e d in B a r n e t s o n and B o b e r g (2000), g o v e r n m e n t p o l i c y h a s p r e s s u r e d A l b e r t a ' s p o s t s e c o n d a r y institutions to i n c r e a s e i n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f i c i e n c y a n d f l e x i b i l i t y in o r d e r to l o w e r c o s t s to t h e t a x p a y e r a n d m a t c h p r o g r a m m i n g t o l a b o u r m a r k e t n e e d s . B e g i n n i n g in 1 9 9 4 , A l b e r t a ' s g o v e r n m e n t r e d u c e d its f u n d i n g to p o s t s e c o n d a r y institutions by 2 1 % over three years ( A E C D , 1994). C o m b i n e d with enrollment i n c r e a s e s a n d s l u g g i s h f u n d i n g g r o w t h in t h e 1 9 8 0 s , r e a l - d o l l a r , p e r s t u d e n t f u n d i n g d e c l i n e d b y 5 0 . 4 % b e t w e e n 1982 ( $ 1 2 , 4 7 8 ) a n d 1999 ( $ 6 , 1 8 4 ) . T h i s d e c l i n e w a s r e d u c e d to 3 4 . 9 % by rising tuition r e v e n u e . T h e r e s u l t i n g f i n a n c i a l p r e s s u r e w a s in part m a n a g e d b y a 5 . 9 % d e c l i n e in a v e r a g e r e a l - d o l l a r salary a n d b e n e f i t p a y m e n t s to f u l l - t i m e f a c u l t y b e t w e e n 1994 a n d 1998 ( A E C D , 1995; A E C D , 1999). S i n c e the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f L e t h b r i d g e C o m m u n i t y C o l l e g e in 1957, A l b e r t a ' s c o l l e g e sector has g r o w n to i n c l u d e o n e art college, three agricultural colleges, four vocational colleges, nine community/regional The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 Part-time and Limited-term Faculty in Alberta s Colleges 81 colleges and two technical institutes. Each institution offers a wide range of programming that can include university transfer, academic upgrading, t w o - y e a r career and technical d i p l o m a s , c o m m u n i t y e d u c a t i o n , apprenticeship training and four-year applied degrees. The college and institute system as of September 1999 is summarized in Table 1. Alberta's colleges differ from the Ontario's Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology in that Alberta's institutions are more diverse and have a large c o m m i t m e n t to university-transfer programs. A l b e r t a ' s colleges also differ from those in British Columbia in that Alberta's colleges have been largely unsuccessful in gaining degree-granting status (Dennison, 1995; Dennison & Gallagher, 1986). The operation of colleges and institutes is governed by the Act and the Technical Institutes Colleges Act respectively. These acts mandate a form of bicameral governance and each institution is managed by a government-appointed Board of Governors. Academic decisions are vetted through an academic council that makes recommendations to the Board of Governors. The advisory role of academic councils m e a n s faculty h a v e l e s s c o n t r o l o v e r a c a d e m i c m a t t e r s t h a n at u n i v e r s i t i e s — a Canada-wide characteristic in public colleges (Dennison & Gallagher, 1986). This situation heightens the importance of collective agreements as a way faculty can constrain administrative decision-making. The Acts state that the Employment Relations Standards Code and the Labour Code do not apply to the negotiation and enforcement of a col- lective agreement between Boards and academic staff associations. In their place, the Acts stipulate the minimum content of collective agreements and deemed provisions for resolving interest and rights disputes (via binding arbitration) if an institution's collective agreement is silent on the matter. The academic staff associations at each institution have formed a provincial organization called the Alberta Colleges & Institutes Faculties Association (ACIFA). ACIFA provides advice and assistance in collective bargaining but each association bargains independently (as o p p o s e d to the p r o v i n c e - w i d e b a r g a i n i n g that o c c u r s at c o l l e g e s in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario). The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 Table 1 Alberta's Colleges and Institutes Institution Main Campus Students Programming ACAD (Alberta College of Art and Design) Bow Valley College Fairview College Grande Prairie Regional College Grant MacEwan College Keyano College Lakeland College Lethbridge College Medicine Hat College Mount Royal College NAIT (Northern Alberta Institute of Technology) NorQuest College Northern Lakes College Olds College Portage College Red Deer College SAIT (Southern Alberta Institute of Technology) Calgary Calgary Fairview Grande Prairie Edmonton Fort McMurray Vermilion Lethbridge Medicine Hat Calgary Edmonton Edmonton Slave Lake Olds Lac La Biche Red Deer Calgary 741.8 2936.2 834.4 1412.6 6800.5 1261.6 1286.1 3761.1 2043.0 6307.5 9423.1 3481.6 1073.4 1176.8 923.4 3450.2 9124.7 Degree-granting Adult Upgrading/Career Diploma/ Apprenticeship University Transfer University Transfer Diploma/Apprenticeship Diploma/Apprenticeship Diploma/University Transfer Diploma/University Transfer University Transfer Diploma/Apprenticeship Adult Upgrading/Career Adult Upgrading/Career Diploma/Apprenticeship Adult Upgrading/Career University Transfer Diploma/Apprenticeship Source: A E C D , 1999 Note: Student n u m b e r s are full-load equivalents (FLEs) for 1997/98. Part-time and Limited-term Faculty in Alberta s Colleges 83 PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY In March 1999, representatives from five academic staff associations requested that ACIFA study the growing use of part-time and limitedterm faculty with specific attention to reports that w o m e n disproportionately received these non-regular instructional appointments (NRIAs). Four questions emerged from discussion: 1. W h a t percentage of faculty are employed on a part-time basis at each institution? 2. W h a t percentage of faculty are employed on a limited-term basis at each institution? 3. D o w o m e n disproportionately receive part-time and/or limited-term appointments? 4. Does a dual labour market exist at any institutions? To answer the first three questions, A C I F A gathered information regarding the number and type of instructional appointments from each c o l l e g e u s i n g Alberta Privacy s Freedom of Information and Protection of Act (Barnetson, 2000). During data gathering, the terms and conditions of employment were described in two different ways. First, the workload (i.e., whether a j o b is full-time or part-time) of all faculty was examined. Second, the duration of employment (i.e., whether a j o b is p e r m a n e n t or limited-term) was examined. This approach deviated f r o m earlier studies (e.g., CIEA, 1992; Gappa and Leslie, 1993) that f o c u s e x c l u s i v e l y on w o r k l o a d . B y e x a m i n i n g b o t h w o r k l o a d and e m p l o y m e n t duration, a more complete picture of employment conditions emerge that illustrates, for example, the large number of full-time employees w h o are employed on a limited-term (i.e., temporary) basis. To answer the fourth question, the percentage of part-time and limited-term appointments at each institution was examined. If the institut i o n e m p l o y e d m o r e t h a n 2 5 % o f its f a c u l t y o n a p a r t - t i m e a n d limited-term basis, that institution's collective agreement was examined to determine if the pro-rata remuneration of part-time faculty was significantly lower than for full-time faculty. If this was the case, then a dual labour market was deemed to exist. Further information regarding this approach (and its limitations) is presented along with the results below. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 84 B. Barnetson RESULTS This section outlines the number of part-time and limited-term faculty e m p l o y e d in Alberta's colleges and institutes in September 1999. This section also compares the percentages of women and men receiving part-time and limited-term appointments. Finally, this section reports on the emergence of a dual labour market at 5 of 17 institutions. Part-time employment in Alberta's colleges and institutes The use of part-time faculty has received extensive treatment with the majority of the literature being descriptive work emanating from the U n i t e d States and focusing on part-time appointments in universities (e.g., G a p p a & Leslie, 1993, 1997; Leslie, 1998; Leslie, Kellams, & Gunne, 1982; Tuckman, 1979). A number of Canadian studies exist but m o s t f o c u s on u n i v e r s i t y a c a d e m i c s (e.g., C o u n c i l of O n t a r i o Universities, 1991; L u n d y & Warme, 1985; R a j a g o p a l & Farr, 1989; Rajagopal & Lin, 1996) while two studies (CIEA, 1992; Prindle, 1998) address part-time faculty in community colleges. The percentage of U.S. community college faculty who are part-time increased f r o m 3 8 % in 1968 to 58% in 1993 (Robinson, 1994; Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron, 1995). Longitudinal data in Canada are not available, but in 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 , 52.1% of educational staff in Canada's colleges and vocational schools were employed on a part-time basis (Statistics Canada, 2000b). This percentage differs substantially from the 18.3% of all C a n a d i a n e m p l o y e e s w h o w o r k e d on a p a r t - t i m e b a s i s in 1999 (Statistics Canada, 2000a). The higher proportion of part-time employees in colleges may reflect that: (1) colleges have large career-training programs and use professionals as instructors, (2) colleges are meant to be responsive to social needs and hiring part-time (as well as temporary) staff increases p r o g r a m m i n g flexibility, and (3) part-time faculty can reduce the cost of providing instruction. In this study, faculty members were classified as working full-time (i.e., carrying 100% of the normal workload assigned to faculty m e m bers) or as working part-time (i.e., carrying less than 100% of a normal workload). T h e part-time category therefore comprises faculty with a The CanadianJournalof Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 Part-time and Limited-term Faculty in Alberta s Colleges 85 wide range of workloads, all of which are less than 100% of the normal workload. This categorization obscures differences between part-time faculty (e.g., faculty teaching one course are combined with faculty carr y i n g 80%) of a n o r m a l teaching load). Despite this d r a w back, this approach created a consistent definition of workload. This consistent definition w a s important because workload definitions varied between institutions and it was necessary for institutional data to be comparable. Table 2 outlines the n u m b e r and proportion of part-time appointm e n t s in Alberta's colleges and technical institutes. A s of September 1999, 44.0% of all faculty were part-time although this average masks substantial variation by institution. Table 2 shows that the use of part-time faculty is greater in large urban centres and in institutions located in the more heavily populated southern parts of Alberta. This pattern may reflect a larger pool of potential part-time instructors in these areas. Limited-term employment in Alberta's colleges and institutes A s noted above, most studies of non-regular instructional appointm e n t s do not explicitly differentiate b e t w e e n issues of workload and employment duration. Most frequently, part-time employees are assumed to be temporary and full-time employees are assumed to be permanent. Anecdotal evidence suggested that this assumption did not hold true in Alberta; therefore, the issue of employment duration was also examined. In this study, faculty members were classified as permanent employees (i.e., having employment contracts without a fixed date of termination) or limited-term employees (i.e., having one or more employment contracts with a fixed date of termination). The limited-term category t h e r e f o r e c o m p r i s e s faculty with differing contract lengths but all of which have a fixed date of termination. This categorization obscures differences b e t w e e n limited-term faculty (e.g., faculty with three-month contracts are combined with faculty with three-year contracts). Despite this drawback, this approach created a consistent definition of employment duration. This was important because institutions' differing definitions of faculty (based upon their degree of permanency) confounded the analysis and it was necessary for institutional data to be comparable. The CanadianJournalof Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 86 B. Barnetson Table 2 Part-time Appointments by Institution, September 1999 Institution Total faculty Part-time faculty Percentage faculty part-time 52.6 15.4 20.2 20.9 75.8 ACAD Bow Valley Fairview Grande Prairie Grant MacEwan 95 50 156 84 153 930 24 17 32 705 Keyano Lakeland Lethbridge 119 122 614 16 29 466 Medicine Hat Mount Royal NAIT NorQuest Northern Lakes Olds Portage Red Deer SAIT 177 514 884 142 95 100 106 266 881 76 281 191 15 1 17 29 70 369 5,438 2,388 Total Source: Institutions Note: Data for Portage for Fairview ' human resource and Northern 21.6 10.9 1.1 17.0 27.4 26.3 41.9 44.0 departments Lakes Colleges is from February College is from March The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 13.5 23.8 75.9 42.9 54.7 2000. 2000. Data Part-time and Limited-term Faculty in Alberta s Colleges 87 It is important to note that faculty employed on a limited-term contract may be employed either part-time or full-time. For example, a number of institutions hire faculty to teach a full course load on a three-year contract. These faculty would be full-time when described in terms of workload but limited-term when described in terms of employment duration. Similarly, a small number of faculty are employed on a half-time basis (i.e., are part-time) but have contracts without fixed termination dates (i.e., are permanent). Rhoades (1998) argues that the substitution of limited-term for permanent appointments may reduce the power and autonomy of faculty. Specifically, managers may be better able to bypass traditional checks on their power, more closely direct the activities of faculty members, and separate curriculum development from delivery. Overall, this strategy has the effect of subordinating faculty in institutional decision-making. The growing use of limited-term faculty also allows managers to mitigate institutions' asymmetrical ability to expand (easy) and contract (diff i c u l t ) p r o g r a m s w h e n the m a j o r i t y of f a c u l t y are f u l l - t i m e and permanent faculty. Table 3 outlines the number and proportion of limited-term appointments in Alberta's colleges and technical institutes. As of September 1999, 50.4% of faculty were limited-term although this average masks substantial variation by institution. Table 3 shows that the use of limited-term faculty is more pronounced in large urban centres and in institutions located in the more heavily populated southern parts of Alberta. Again, this pattern may reflect the larger pool of potential limited-term faculty and perhaps an unwillingness of potential faculty to move to more remote locations for temporary positions. Overall, institutions use more limited-term faculty than they do part-time faculty. The overall employment of part-time and limited-term faculty As noted above, 44.0% of faculty in Alberta's colleges and institutes held part-time appointments in September 1999. Slightly more than half of faculty (50.4%) held limited-term appointments. When these data The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 88 B. Barnetson Table 3 Limited-term Appointments by Institution, September 1999 Institution Total faculty ACAD Bow Valley Fairview Grande Prairie Grant MacEwan 95 156 84 153 930 Keyano Lakeland Lethbridge Medicine Hat Mount Royal NAIT NorQuest Northern Lakes Olds Portage Red Deer SAIT 119 122 614 Total Source: Note: Limited-term Percentage faculty faculty limited-term 49 17 28 52 266 881 745 11 39 413 107 328 256 36 7 28 29 102 495 5438 2742 177 514 884 142 95 100 106 51.6 10.9 33.3 34.0 80.1 9.2 32.0 67.3 60.5 63.8 29.0 25.4 7.8 28.0 27.4 38.4 56.2 50.4 Institutions ' human resource departments Data for Portage and Northern Lakes Colleges is from February 2000. Data for Fairview College is from March 2000. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 Part-time and Limited-term Faculty in Alberta s Colleges 89 h <U •O B J g • 4 — » I X *a u N O O ON D O e (N i •e • 5 T OI lO 3 U n CL, a< S E C S c m ON ON ON h ai -O a. tu (n < u s £ "5. E c < u c ta g S? E 5 ^ o. S 0) < U & P. O t-t; ta V "1 S < N 3 U- OH a > S « S « O h W « S M E S S S H The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 90 B. Barnetson about workload and employment duration are combined, four groupings emerge as shown in Figure 1. The largest group of employees comprises full-time, permanent faculty (46.4%). These employees have the highest level of remuneration, job security and opportunity for advancement. The second largest group of employees are part-time, limited-term faculty (40.9%). These employees have the lowest levels of remuneration, job security and opportunity for advancement. The third largest group of employees are full-time, limited-term faculty (9.6%). The final group of employees (part-time permanent faculty) is so small (3.1%) as to be of little consequence. Of interest was that nearly 1 in 5 full-time faculty are employed on a temporary basis; that is, despite having a full-time workload, the length of their employment is fixed. This finding suggests that examining both workload and employment duration does provide a more complete picture of employment patterns. Do women disproportionately receive NRIAs? Concern was raised prior to commencing this study that women disproportionately received part-time and/or limited-term appointments. During the literature review, some evidence emerged that the allocation of NRIAs is related to gender. For example, a 1992 study conducted in British Columbia's colleges and institutes found 57% of NRIAs were held by females and 41% by males with 2% not reporting gender (CIEA, 1992). Frequently, gender differences are explained as the result of female faculty desiring part-time employment to accommodate childcare as well as quasi-retirement and/or other employment (Gappa & Leslie, 1997). Two studies challenge this explanation. The B.C. study found that 55% of non-regular faculty desired more work (CIEA, 1992). A study of US two-year colleges found that 43.5% of women (as compared to 35.1% of men) in vocational fields and 63.8% of women (as compared to 62.9% of men) in liberal arts fields took part-time positions because a full-time position was not available (Benjamin, 1998). Further, this explanation would not address a gender inequity in limited-term a p p o i n t m e n t s . It seems u n r e a s o n a b l e to assume that anyone would choose to have little or no job security (an arrangement that benefits only The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 Part-time and Limited-term Faculty in Alberta s Colleges 91 institutions). The B.C. study found 84% of non-regular faculty desired more job security. Table 4 shows the percentages of men and women holding part-time and limited-term appointments. As of September 1999, 53.4% of women held part-time appointments (as compared to 36.4% of m e n ) while 59.1% of women held limited-term appointments (as compared to 44.0% of men). The data presented in Table 4 show that a greater proportion of women than men hold part-time appointments and limited-term appointments. It may that women more frequently hold part-time appointments for a host of valid reasons (e.g., child- or elder-care, quasi-retirement). Of interest is that 59.1% of women (as opposed to 44.0% of men) hold limited-term appointments. No obvious explanation exists for this difference as it is possible for women to be employed on a part-time, permanent basis. That w o m e n disproportionately hold part-time and limited-term appointments which provide lower levels of remuneration, job security and opportunity for advancement suggests some of Alberta's c o l l e g e s and institutes m a y be v i o l a t i n g A l b e r t a ' s Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act that prohibits discrimination against identifiable groups such as women. Discrimination need not be direct (e.g., not hiring women) in that policies or actions that consistently yield prohibited consequences (i.e., systemic or indirect discrimination) are also a violation of human rights legislation (McPhillips & England, 1995). The existence of a dual labour market Academic employment often exhibits the characteristics of a dual or segmented labour market (Gappa & Leslie, 1993, 1997). In dual labour markets, employment is stratified into two sectors (e.g., full-time and permanent appointments versus part-time and/or limited-term appointments) that receive markedly different remuneration, job security and opportunity for advancement (Ryan, 1981). In general, the primary labour market is characterized by high wages, good working conditions, employment stability and job security, due process in the administration of work rules, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 92 B. Barnetson Table 4 NRIAs by Gender and Institution, September 1999 Institution ACAD Bow Valley Fairview Grande Prairie Grant MacEwan Keyano Lakeland Lethbridge Medicine Hat Mount Royal NAIT Northern Lakes NorQuest Olds Portage Red Deer SAIT Source: Note: Part-time % Females % Males 55.6 16.0 42.1 26.5 77.3 26.7 41.2 84.1 50.0 58.0 28.5 2.2 10.5 11.5 34.0 32.5 63.4 50.8 12.9 13.9 16.5 73.7 5.4 11.3 67.6 36.8 50.4 19.8 0.0 10.6 18.9 20.8 21.0 34.4 Limited-term % Females % Males 55.6 12.0 63.2 36.8 81.3 11.1 45.1 74.0 64.6 67.1 39.2 6.5 23.2 34.6 28.3 49.6 75.8 49.2 6.5 19.1 31.8 78.4 8.1 22.5 60.6 56.8 59.7 26.2 9.1 29.8 25.7 26.4 28.7 49.4 Institutions ' human resource departments. Data for Portage and Northern Lakes Colleges is from February 2000. Data for Fairview College is from March 2000. and opportunity for advancement. This contrasts with the secondary market that features low wages, poor working conditions, considerable variability in employment, harsh and often arbitrary discipline and little opportunity to advance. The most significant distinction between the two markets is the discrepancy in job stability and security. In the secondary labour market, workers face substantial instability in employment and their jobs are not connected to any occupational ladd e r . . . W a g e s in the p r i m a r y sector r e f l e c t , a m o n g other factors, years of employment, cost of living adjustments, and p e r f o r m a n c e incentives, whereas w a g e s in the secondary The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 Part-time and Limited-term Faculty in Alberta s Colleges 93 sector respond primarily to the aggregate balance of supply and demand. (Roemer & Schnitz, 1982, p. 522) A dual labour market can have a number of consequences, including the secondary labour market organizing to promote its interests at the expense of members of the primary labour market and even the broader organization (Roemer & Schnitz, 1982). Further, the existence of a secondary labour market may actually erode the position and size of the primary labour market (Gappa & Leslie, 1993). The collective agreements of the seven institutions with greater than 25% of their faculty employed on a part-time and limited-term basis were reviewed to explore the differences in employment conditions (e.g., salary, benefits, and opportunity for advancement) between full-time, permanent faculty and those holding NRIAs (ACAD, 1997; G M C C , 1997; LCC, 1997; MHC, 1997; MRC, 1998; RDC, 1995; SAIT, 1997). Prior to presenting the data, it is important to note some limitations. It is extremely difficult to compare the employment conditions of f u l l - t i m e , p e r m a n e n t faculty with those of faculty holding N R I A s because full-time, permanent faculty have administrative and curricular responsibilities as well as instructional duties. Further, comparing workloads between different academic areas (e.g., trades versus university transfer) is often problematic with institutions enacting complex "standardized academic unit" calculations to address this issue internally. These difficulties c o m p o u n d when inter-institutional comparison is undertaken. This study attempts to deal with this limitation by making salary comparisons on a per-course basis. That is, the salary paid to a full-time, permanent instructor is prorated on a per-course basis (assuming most faculty teach the equivalent of 10 one-semester courses per academic year) and compared to the per-course pay received by NRIAs. As noted above, this classification fails to address the differing duties of full-time, permanent faculty and the faculty holding NRIAs. Despite this drawback, a per-course comparison provides the most reasonable means by which to compare salary at a provincial level. Somewhat mitigating this drawback is that faculty holding NRIAs often perform curricular and administrative duties without pay. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 94 B. Barnetson D i f f e r e n c e s in contract language create further limitations. The working conditions of NRIAs at many institutions are not codified or are vaguely worded and attempting to determine benefits levels and holiday provisions often requires inference. This variance limits the validity of the comparisons presented below and they should be cited with caution (or, preferably, with reference to the collective agreement from which they are drawn). A related third limitation is that not all faculty holding NRIAs within a single institution have similar employment conditions. Some NRIAs are identical to full-time, permanent appointments (e.g., sessionals) except that they are employed on a temporary basis. These same institutions may also have one or more categories of part-time and/or limited-term faculty. When combined with the vague (or absent) contract language, this makes inter-institutional comparisons difficult. For the purpose of this comparison, the NRIA used for comparisons was the N R I A that received the highest level of remuneration but was not a limited-term version of a full-time, permanent appointment (i.e., was not a sessional appointment). Permanent, part-time positions were also excluded as they exist primarily to accommodate full-time, permanent faculty desiring flexibility. Finally, it is important to note that examining the collective agreements does not fully capture the working conditions faced by NRIAs. Specifically, the collective agreements do not address the treatment of faculty holding NRIAs, their motives for teaching, and how their different employment conditions affect them. Table 5 indicates that, at five of seven institutions, faculty holding NRIAs received less pay on a per-course basis. The difference in pay ranges from $0 to $3,145. The comparisons between the pay of full-time, permanent faculty and that of faculty holding NRIAs presented in Table 5 may be slightly misleading. In most cases, NRIAs will be paid closer to the minimum level while most full-time, permanent faculty are paid closer to the maxim u m level (reflecting that experience is less frequently considered in remuneration of the secondary labour market). In the most extreme cases, NRIAs are paid between $2,526 and $4,201 less per course than full-time, permanent faculty. It is important to note the limitations affecting this finding that are outlined above. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 Part-time and Limited-term Faculty in Alberta s Colleges u o c < U —' Os m S O mi o •/i n n •sf o r- © — < N C N cn < rm Os 2 z so Os o •sr o OS S O S O ,—i S O OS o C N (N m C N C N C N i — i cn S <n O m oo m C N C N o C N C N O S C N cn cn O so so S >n S O S O O Pi u o C S O C N in in o in oo r- in o in o o O O en o en r — (N 3 W ) < u 95 o Q — ,, 2 J |I O S ,—i C N rO cn o S C N cn C N C N O — , i C N Os O > — i O C N cn cn o o o cn 03 3 b Q a» 04 O S so O oo S O O C N o r- C N O S o C-O O C N m m cn in m C N C N O o o cn < Z i. "3 O ^ S -S C c O U u. at §e a M Oh yrt " -s e2 j« E O U c o c £ ca C 3 m mP >1 o M H O a, C 3 73, e U 4 — » u Q a C 3 Q H I O u IU h D < U < c a j Pi en 3 3 The CanadianJournalofHigher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 96 B. Barnetson It is not possible to compare the benefit levels of N R I A s with those of full-time faculty. In part, this is because the specifics of benefits are frequently not contained within the collective agreements. It is possible to get some sense of the j o b security and opportunity for advancement that N R I A s have at the seven institutions noted above. The nature of limited-term appointments suggests that faculty holding them have no j o b security beyond the end of their current contract. At all institutions, faculty holding N R I A s can access the grievance process (although faculty h o l d i n g N R I A s at Lethbridge C o m m u n i t y College are precluded f r o m taking grievances to arbitration). That said, there is a strong sense a m o n g grievance officers that faculty with limited-term appointments w h o file grievances risk the non-renewal of their contract (Sway, 2000). Both R e d Deer College's and S A I T ' s collective agreements cap in some m a n n e r the n u m b e r of faculty w h o can hold NRIAs. Experience to date, h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t e s that t h e s e c a p s are d i f f i c u l t to e n f o r c e ( L o g u e , 2 0 0 0 ) . G r a n t M a c E w a n C o m m u n i t y C o l l e g e ' s collective a g r e e m e n t requires a review of the classification of faculty holding N R I A s after three years of e m p l o y m e n t but the decision to reclassify lies with the dean. All institutions have a provision for part-time permanent appointm e n t s b u t e x p e r i e n c e to date s u g g e s t s that t h e s e a p p o i n t m e n t s are reserved for full-time, permanent faculty wishing a temporary reduction in their workload (Sway, 2000). DISCUSSION This study raises a number of interesting and difficult questions for faculty m e m b e r s in Alberta's colleges and institutes. For example, how did the dual labour market that exists at five institutions come about? W h a t political and legal implications do the large n u m b e r of faculty h o l d i n g N R I A s h a v e for faculty associations? A n u m b e r of b r o a d e r implications of this trend are also discussed. How did a dual labour market emerge? It s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e to assert that declining g o v e r n m e n t f u n d i n g pressures institutions to reduce instructional costs by increasingly using The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 Part-time and Limited-term Faculty in Alberta s Colleges 97 part-time and limited-term appointments. The ability of institutions to m a k e non-regular instructional appointments can be (and is at some institutions) constrained by the collective agreement. This agreement is developed and modified jointly by an institution's Board of Governors and its faculty association. If a collective agreement allows an institution to hire a large (or unlimited) number of part-time and limited-term faculty, this contract suggests that the faculty association (traditionally d o m i n a t e d by f u l l - t i m e and p e r m a n e n t faculty) was unable and/or unwilling to negotiate a clause to prevent this outcome. In Prindle's (1998) examination of the use of part-time faculty at three Alberta colleges, she found that full-time, permanent faculty interviewed focused on maintaining their remuneration, j o b security and opportunity for advancement while the number of NRIAs increased. Faculty Associations often f o r m e d coalitions within their membership of full-time, continuing instructors with instructors who were close to full-time in status, such as sessionals. This coalition would bargain for better salaries and benefits for these two groups sometimes to the detriment of the greater number of part-time instructors... Faculty Association interviewees, in almost all instances, seemed to be more concerned with maintaining the status quo and not eroding their base of full-time membership. Association members interv i e w e d realized the inequities of treatment for p a r t - t i m e instructors, but were still more interested in negotiating their way through changing circumstances for full-time, their longterm members, at their own institutions than they were in picking up a whole new group of employees to represent (pp. 134-135). Overall, faculty members (mainly full-time) see nothing to gain, and security, seniority and professional development funds to lose, from breaking from the tradition of advocating for full-time members (p. 158). When this evidence is combined with the absence of controls on hiring NRIAs in the collective agreements, it suggests that full-time permanent faculty have (intentionally or inadvertently) facilitated the growing use of part-time and limited-term faculty. The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 98 B. Barnetson What political and legal implications does this have for faculty associations? At the Grant MacEwan College, Lethbridge Community College and Mount Royal College, the number of faculty holding N R I A s is now larger than the number of full-time, permanent faculty. This percentage creates a situation wherein the political stability of the faculty association is no longer assured. Assuming faculty holding NRIAs could overcome organizational difficulties, their numbers would allow them to assume control of the association (and, thus, the bargaining of future collective agreements). This has the potential to alter how remuneration is distributed drastically as well as disrupt the smooth functioning of the organization. F r o m a legal perspective, if faculty associations bargain collective agreements that consistently disadvantage faculty holding NRIAs, they may be failing in their duty of fair representation. The duty of fair representation requires that faculty associations not act unfairly, arbitrarily or discriminatorily towards their members (Thorncroft & Eden, 1995) — such as by negotiating contracts that consistently yield poorer employm e n t conditions f o r part-time and/or limited-term faculty. Failing to address this issue may result in faculty holding N R I A s pursuing remedy through the court system. Broader implications The differences between provincial college sectors make it unreasonable to generalize the conclusion of this study to other jurisdictions. This study does, however, raise a number of interesting questions with application beyond Alberta. For example, what impact will the expected shortfall of qualified faculty at universities have as retirements coincide with an enrollment increase (Frank, 2000; Laurier Institute 2000; Smith 2000)? Will universities draw faculty f r o m community college university-transfer programs? The higher salary levels, lower teaching loads and the o p p o r t u n i t y to c o n d u c t research o f f e r e d by universities m a y m a k e this an attractive option for some college instructors. Similarly, will the expected shortfall in skilled tradespeople and managers draw current and potential faculty away from careers in college and institutes? The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 Part-time and Limited-term Faculty in Alberta s Colleges 99 Further, will these changes in the academic labour market create pressure on institutions to improve the terms and conditions of employment? As discussed previously by Rhoades (1998), a second set of implications centre on the impact of the growing use of NRIAs on the power and control administrators can exercise both inside and outside of the classroom. The nature of education makes it difficult for administrators to assert their right to manage because individual instructors retain control over the activity in the classroom (and, in fact, educational outcomes stem from faculty's interaction with students). Nevertheless, NRIAs can increase productivity because faculty holding NRIAs cost less on a percourse basis than full-time, permanent staff and allow institutions to extract additional labour from their employees. Institutions can extract additional labour from NRIAs because of the disparity in power between employers and faculty holding limited-term appointments: although the notion of a "contract" between a faculty member and an institution implies two (relatively equal) parties voluntarily entering into a relationship, this is not always the case. B e n j a m i n (1998) notes that while NRIAs are entirely optional for some faculty (e.g., professionals teaching for prestige, intrinsic rewards or extra income), for others it is a matter of working on the employer's terms, or not working at all. Faculty hired on limited-term contracts are exceptionally vulnerable because they have no job security beyond the end of their contract. This vulnerability provides administrators with substantial leverage with which to extract additional labour (e.g., attend meetings, take part in committee work, or develop curriculum) without remuneration. Faculty in this position are less likely to refuse, complain or file grievances than full-time, p e r m a n e n t faculty would be because of the implicit threat of nonrenewal. If collective agreements are a key tool used by faculty to constrain the actions of administrators in public colleges, the growing use of faculty who are poorly (or not) protected suggests administrators gain additional operational l a t i t u d e . ^ The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 100 B. Barnetson References ACAD. (1997). Collective agreement between the Board of Governors of the Alberta College of art and Design and the Alberta College of Art and Design Faculty Association. July 1, 1997-June 30, 2000. Calgary, AB: Alberta College of Art and Design. AECD. (1994). New directions for adult learning in Alberta. White Paper. Edmonton, AB: Advanced Education and Career Development. AECD. (1995). 1994/95 Annual report. Edmonton, AB: Advanced Education and Career Development. AECD. (1999). 1998/99 Annual report. Edmonton, AB: Advanced Education and Career Development. Alberta Learning. (2000). 1999/2000 Annual report. Edmonton, AB: Author. Barnetson, B. (2000). The use of part-time and limited-term faculty in Alberta's colleges and institutes. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Colleges & Institutes Faculties Association. Barnetson, B. & Boberg, A. (2000). Resource allocation and public policy in Alberta's higher education system. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 30(2), 57-86. Benjamin, E. (1998). Variations in the characteristics of part-time faculty by general field of instruction and research. In D.W. Leslie (Ed.), The growing use of part-time faculty: Understanding causes and effects. New Directions for Higher Education, 104, 45-59. CIEA. (1992). Non-regular faculty survey. Report. Vancouver, BC: College Institute Educators' Association Committee for Non-Regular Faculty. Council of Ontario Universities. (1991). Non-regular instructional personnel in Ontario Universities. Report, June. Toronto, ON: The COU Committee on the Status of Women. Dennison, J.D. (1995). Organization and function in postsecondary education. In J.D. Dennison (Ed.), Challenge and opportunity: Canada's community colleges at the crossroads, (pp. 13-104). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Dennison, J.D., & Gallagher, P. (1986). Canada's community colleges: A critical analysis. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Frank, T. (2000). Competition for faculty heats up. University Affairs, January 8, 10-12. Gappa, J.M., & Leslie, D.W. (1993). The invisible faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 Part-time and Limited-term Faculty in Alberta s Colleges 101 Gappa, J.M., & Leslie, D.W. (1997). Two faculties or one? The conundrum of part-timers in a bifurcated work force. New Pathways: Faculty, career and employment for the 21st century working paper series. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 424 817. GMCC. (1997). Collective agreement between the Grant MacEwan Community College Board of Governors and the Grant MacEwan Community College faculty Association. Edmonton, AB, July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1999. Laurier Institute. (2000). Renewal and retention: Attracting and keeping faculty and senior administrators at British Columbian University. Report, June. Vancouver, BC: Author. LCC. (1997). Collective agreement between the Board of Governors and Faculty Association (revised). Lethbridge, July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1999. Leslie, D.W. (Ed.). (1998). The growing use of part-time faculty: Understanding causes and effects. New Directions for Higher education, 104. Leslie, D.W, Kellams, S.E., & Gunne, G.M. (1982). Part-time faculty in American higher education. New York, NY: Praeger. Logue, E. (2000). Personal communications. Ed Logue, President, SAIT Academic Staff Association. Lundy, K.L.P., & Warme, B.D. (1985). Part-time faculty: Institutional needs and career dilemmas. Paper presented at the 1985 ASHE Annual Meeting, Chicago, March 16. Washington, DC: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 259 613. McPhillips, D., & England, G. (1995). Employment legislation. In M. Gunderson & A. Ponak (Eds.), Union-management relations in Canada, 3rd edition, (pp. 73-102). Don Mills, ON: Addison-Wesley Publishers Limited. MHC. (1997). Contract between the Faculty Association and the Board of Governors. Medicine Hat, AB, July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1999. MRC. (1998). Collective agreement between the Mount Royal Faculty Association and the Board of Governors of Mount Royal College. Calgary, AB, July 1 1997 to June 30, 1999. Prindle, L.M. (1998). Part-time instructors and organizational change in three community colleges in Alberta, Canada. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Gonzaga University, WA, School of Education. Rajagopal, I., & Farr, W.D. (1989). The political economy of part-time academic work in Canada. Higher Education, 18, 267-285. Rajagopal, I., & Lin, Z. (1996). Hidden careerists in Canadian universities. Higher Education, 32, 247-266. The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001 102 B. Barnetson RDC. (1995). FARDC/Board Collective Agreement. Red Deer, AB, July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1998. Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professionals: Unionized faculty and restructuring academic labour. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Robinson, P. (1994). Part-time faculty issues. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers. Roemer, R.E., & Schnitz, J.E. (1982). Academic employment as day labour: The dual labour market in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 53(5), 514-531. Roueche, J.E., Roueche, S.D., & Milliron, M.D. (1995). Strangers in their own land: Part-time faculty in American Community Colleges. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Ryan, P. (1981). Segmentation, duality and the internal labour market. In F. Wilkinson (Ed.), The dynamics of labour market segmentation, (pp. 3-22). Toronto, ON: Academic Press. SAIT. (1997). Collective agreement between the Board of Governors of the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology and the SAIT Academic Faculty Association. Calgary, AB: Author. Smith, D.C. (2000). Will there be enough excellent profs? Report on prospective demand and supply conditions for university faculty in Ontario. Report, March. Toronto, ON: Council of Ontario Universities. Statistics Canada. (2000a). Full-time and part-time employment. CANSIM Matrix 3472. www.statcan.ca Statistics Canada. (2000b). Educational staff of community colleges and vocational schools. The Daily, September 13. www.statcan.ca. Sway, T. (2000). Personal communication. Terry Sway, Labour Relations Officer, Alberta Colleges & Institutes Faculties Associations. Thorncroft, K.W., & Eden, G. (1995). Grievances and their resolution. In M. Gunderson & A. Ponak (Eds.), Union-management relations in Canada, 3rd edition, (pp. 255-280). Don Mills, ON: Addison-Wesley Publishers Limited. Tuckman, H. (1978). Who is part-time in academe? AAUP Bulletin, 64, 305-315. The Canadian fournal of Higher Education Volume XXXI, No. 2, 2001