FAQ: 2026 MoA Revisions

How does this new MoA address all of the issues that staff have been raising (burnout, doing more with less, etc.)?

Right now, if we believe the university is doing something wrong—misapplying policy, treating staff unfairly—all we can really do is ask them to change it. With this MoA—specifically the new association grievance process—they have to come to the table to address it. And if they don’t, we can take it to an external arbitrator who will make a binding ruling on the issue.

From our conversations with other staff associations, we expect that we will rarely get to the arbitration stage, but having that option means the University has to participate meaningfully in the process.

Beyond salary arbitration, does the MoA do more than simply guarantee UWSA a seat at the table?

Yes, it does! While the 2022 MoA was very focused on ensuring that seat at the table, the proposed changes do much more than that.

These revisions introduce clear timelines, mediation, and arbitration processes for both salary negotiations and grievances. These processes can be used when the University is not following policies, guidelines, procedures, or the MoA itself.

This means the University cannot ignore staff concerns. It must respond within set timeframes, and if issues remain unresolved, we can escalate them to a binding, external decision‑maker.

These mechanisms apply to a wide range of issues affecting staff working conditions, not just salary. Overall, these changes strengthens UWSA’s ability to hold the University accountable and advocate for staff in concrete, enforceable ways.

Has the scope of UWSA’s negotiating and advocacy role been reduced under the MoA, particularly for health, safety, and accessibility issues?

No, these changes do not reduce UWSA’s ability to address health, safety, accessibility, or other workplace concerns—they strengthen it.

Under the current arrangement, we do not negotiate at all. Under the updated MoA, we will formally negotiate salary increases and other compensation-related matters.

Health, safety, accessibility, and other workplace concerns continue to be governed by University policy. The UWSA has approval rights over policies that determine staff working conditions through the Staff Relations Committee.

What has changed is enforcement: If policies related to working conditions are not followed, this MoA gives us the ability to raise and pursue grievances. This strengthens—not weakens—our ability to hold the University accountable on all of these topics and more.

Overall, the MoA strengthens the UWSA’s role as the staff representative on all terms and conditions of employment—which includes anything that affects your working conditions.

How is the MoA different from a collective agreement? 

A collective agreement is more comprehensive than our Memorandum of Agreement. It covers detailed rules about wages, vacation, benefits, job security, and other working conditions. 

For staff at UW, those details are covered in policy, not a collective agreement, though we still functionally negotiate many of them by developing and approving class S and FS policies through the Staff Relations Committee.

Our MoA covers the structure of our relationship with UW—how we negotiate compensation, how issues are resolved, and how staff representation works—but not the details of staff working conditions. Unlike a collective agreement, this structure gives us the ability and flexibility to address issues at any time, not just during comprehensive bargaining.

Does this MoA make us more like a union?

In some ways, yes. The updated MoA gives us a formal negotiation process for compensation and access to mediation or binding arbitration if we can’t reach agreement—tools that are common in union environments. It also strengthens our role as the official representative of staff.

At the same time, staff working conditions at UW remain set through policy, not a collective agreement, and we continue to shape those policies through the Staff Relations Committee. The MoA modernizes our structure without changing the fundamental model we work within.

Why is the MoA being updated?

The October 2022 MoA included a clause stating that it would be in place for two years and could be revised after that time. It was always that plan to review the MoA and make improvements after those two years. Last spring, it became clear that the University was open to the changes we wanted to make and the timing was right to act.

How did you decide what to change?

The changes we pursued were based on input we’ve been hearing from members for years, including feedback received during the 2022 MoA process and since then, through member surveys, emails, our suggestion box, annual meetings, Area Representatives, and more. 

In 2025, we formed a project team of Board members, presidents, and UWSA employees to plan the revision. In addition to priorities identified from existing feedback, we gathered new ideas from members, our Board, and Area Representatives, and used a member survey to identify the highest‑priority issues. At the same time, we notified UW of our intent to update the MoA and worked with them to agree on the items we would address in this revision.

Throughout 2025, we continued checking in with members at meetings and through updates, using your input to guide which changes we pursued once we formally began negotiating with UW. As your elected representatives, the Board of Directors reviewed and shaped the changes throughout the negotiations.

Who was involved in negotiating the MoA?

The three UWSA presidents, who serve on both the Staff Relations Committee (SRC) and Provost's Advisory Committee on Staff Compensation (PACSC) were our representatives on the MoA working group with UW. They were assisted by UWSA employees, external legal counsel, and subject matter experts, and also had substantial support and input from elected directors.

How often will the MoA be reviewed in the future?

After two years have passed with this version, we can notify the University that we want to review the MoA at any time. It is also possible to make minor changes in the meantime via SRC as per section 5.3 of the MoA. We anticipate reviewing the agreement every two to three years, though now that we’ve added some major items, future updates likely won’t be as comprehensive. 

Who can vote on the MoA?

For the purposes of this vote, Members in Good Standing are those staff who are UWSA members when the vote opens and who appear on our March dues list. Payroll will have processed March dues from all staff who are members as of March 18.

If you are on leave and paying $0 dues, you’re still considered a Member in Good Standing as long as you were paying dues before you went on leave.

Shouldn’t all staff covered by the MoA be entitled to vote?

Typically—and ideally—all staff covered by an agreement like this would be part of the Association that negotiates it and would take part in the ratification vote. Right now, not all staff are UWSA members. Voting is a legal right and responsibility of the Association’s membership, and we can’t extend that vote to people who haven’t joined.

Everyone covered by the MoA will benefit from it, but only members can take part in approving it. That’s one of the key reasons we continue encouraging eligible staff to join the UWSA.

How will we vote on the MoA?

Voting will take place through the Simply Voting platform. On March 30, all eligible voters will receive an email from the UWSA with a link to the ballot. If you haven’t voted yet, you’ll also receive reminder emails directly from Simply Voting throughout the voting period.

The outcome is decided by a simple majority (50% + 1) of the valid votes cast. You’ll have the option to abstain, but abstentions are not counted when determining the final result—they don’t contribute to either side of the vote.

How will the ratification vote results be reported?

We’ll report the results on our website and by email to members, including the number of votes cast in favour and opposed, the number of abstentions, and voter turnout (the proportion of eligible members who voted).

What if I have suggested changes? 

We welcome your ideas—they help shape future updates and guide our advocacy. But once a tentative agreement is reached, the draft can’t be revised; the next step is for members to vote on it.

This is the first time we’ve done an MoA revision and ratification process, as that was only established with the 2022 MoA, so it’s a new process for everyone. Here's how it worked:

• Before negotiating with UW on changes, we gathered member input through a survey and other channels to inform our priorities and positions going into the bargaining process.
• During negotiations, discussions are confidential, but the UWSA Board of Directors reviewed and weighed in on every change. 
• Once a tentative agreement is reached, the draft can’t be revised; this is what the University has agreed to, and this is the version that needs to be voted on.

Again, member feedback now will shape future changes—some of which could happen quite soon! There is always the option to make minor changes at any time through Staff Relations Committee as per section 5.3 of the MoA, and we can open the agreement again in two years for more substantial changes. Other feedback will also influence compensation negotiations.

How was the ratification timeline determined?

For ratification, we’re giving members more time than is standard. In unionized settings, collective agreements (which cover much more than our MoA does, since most aspects of staff working conditions live in policy) are often ratified within just a few days of reaching a tentative deal. It’s normal for unions to provide a short window so the agreement can take effect promptly. 

By contrast, we’re giving members a much longer period to read, ask questions, attend information sessions, and vote. That extra time is intentional—we want members to feel informed, supported, and confident in their decision—and we can take that time because of our unique relationship with the University.

What happens if the MoA isn’t ratified?

If this MoA is not ratified, we revert to the current (2022) version without all of the proposed changes, and to using the Provost's Advisory Committee on Staff Compensation to determine salary increases, through a recommendation to the provost.

Can the university add more excluded roles? How are those decided?

No, the University cannot unilaterally add new excluded roles; any changes to the list of excluded members require mutual agreement. In response to concerns raised by staff, we will be working with the University via Staff Relations Committee to add explicit clarifying language to subsection 2.1 to specify that any additions to the exclusions list require mutual agreement. While protections around MoA changes already exist under subsection 5.3, this clarification will remove any ambiguity.

Any proposal to exclude additional roles would be subject to a strict and transparent assessment against the principles set out in subsection 2.1.2. The UWSA will not agree to exclusions unless those criteria are clearly and demonstrably met, and our default position is to limit exclusions wherever possible to protect broad and inclusive membership coverage.

How will excluded staff be represented – for example, are they required to do their own salary negotiation now?

The University has stated, in an email to staff affected by the exclusions, that the salary increase we negotiate will apply to these roles this year. As these staff are excluded from UWSA membership, the application of the negotiated increase is an indirect benefit and does not come from the negotiated envelope (that is, it doesn't cut into the amount we negotiate for members). We can't speak for the University; it's possible they may choose to take a different approach in the future, particularly for very senior roles, but it is our expectation that the increases we negotiate will continue to apply for at least most of these roles.  

What does this change for staff in excluded roles?

The MoA does not affect eligibility for employment benefits or protections—or anything else—covered by UW policies. Those all still apply to employees as defined in each policy. We expect that staff in these roles will still receive salary increases—and we know that for this year, these will be based on the Memorandum of Settlement to be negotiated.

What does change is that staff in these roles will no longer pay UWSA dues and are no longer eligible to join the Association as voting member, or use most of our membership services. They can, however, still access all of our public online resources (including forthcoming policy guides) and any of our events that are open to all staff—and we’re happy to continue to answer questions, even if we can’t provide more extensive support.

The last thing we want is for these staff members—especially those in lower-USG roles—to be left without any support. We appreciate that the University has connected with each affected member and staff in applicable units with a central commitment to supporting staff who are ineligible to be UWSA members. We are seeking additional clarity from the University on what ongoing support structures will be in place for excluded staff, we will monitor how these exclusions are working in practice, and we will revisit with the University if necessary. 

This is a significant change after many years of a very small list of exclusions and we understand the impact this will have on many people. We are happy to answer questions or speak with staff about concerns at any time. 

How did you decide which positions are excluded? 

The list of excluded roles was created by the University based on the duties of each role, access to information, and potential conflicts of interest. Some reasons a role might be excluded are:

• It requires regularly acting on behalf of the University in matters directly related to employment conditions, discipline, or grievances. 
• The job duties include high-level, strategic decision making that directly affect staff working conditions.
• The responsibilities of the role would create conflicts of interest that weaken the Association’s ability to negotiate and advocate for staff—or the University’s ability to represent its own interests in negotiations with the Staff Association.

The list of excluded roles will need to be updated regularly as roles change and new roles are created; any new exclusions will follow the same principles and UWSA is committed to ensuring as few roles as possible are excluded.

Examples of excluded roles

1. HR staff involved in hiring or discipline: Someone who helps make decisions about who gets hired, disciplined, or promoted has access to private employee information and influences employment outcomes. That creates a conflict with participating in a group that represents those same employees.
2. Staff in payroll with access to confidential salary data: An employee who handles payroll or sees everyone’s compensation details works with sensitive information that the Association may use in bargaining. Being part of both groups could compromise privacy or fairness.
3. Employees who support labour relations work: Someone who gathers data, prepares reports, or provides advice used by the University in negotiations or grievance processes is directly involved in labour relations. Being part of the Association would create a conflict of interest.
4. Roles that participate in senior level planning affecting staff: Staff who work closely with senior leadership on confidential strategic plans—including plans that could affect staffing levels or organizational change—are excluded because they have early access to information the Association might need to respond to.

Why did we agree to these exclusions?

This was not an easy decision, but it is a necessary and standard arrangement in labour relations; often, these roles are represented by a separate employee group. We worked very hard to arrive at a minimal list that we and the University could both be comfortable with, and 95% of the approximately 3,000 USG at Waterloo staff remain covered by the MoA. Approximately 150 new positions have been added to the list, about half of which are currently filled by UWSA members. 

Despite these difficult losses in membership, this MoA will position the UWSA to more effectively advocate for changes—to policies, compensation, and employment practices—that benefit ALL staff at the University of Waterloo, not just our members.

What happens to current members whose roles become excluded? 

The current members in these roles will have access to some UWSA services—staff advocacy support, events, and discounts—until August 31, 2026. Dues and other member benefits will end as soon as the MoA is in effect. Affected members have been notified of the details of this transition plan. Excluded members who are currently serving on UWSA committees or acting as UWSA representatives will end their terms following ratification of the MoA.

The exclusions are based on job duties and reflect the responsibilities of the role, not the people in them. If a current member in an excluded role later moves into a non-excluded role, they would resume their membership in the UWSA. Likewise, if you’re currently in the UWSA and move into an excluded role, your membership and dues will stop while you’re in that role.

If I move into an excluded role in the future, what does that mean for me?

Any current members moving into an excluded role after the MoA comes into effect will have their membership suspended for the duration of their time in that role. If you move back to an eligible role later, your membership will resume.

If you are Legacy Staff (hired before October 26, 2022) and currently have the right to opt out of dues, you will retain that right after moving back into an eligible role, unless you were on a temporary contract with an end date and sign a net new employment contract.

Tell me more about dues and membership being separate…

This comes from a 1946 Supreme Court ruling by Justice Ivan Rand. Rand ruled that workers can refuse to join their representative organization as members, but they cannot refuse to pay dues or to be represented. It preserves both freedom of association and funding of representation

In our case:

Dues are about funding the work we do on behalf of all staff—advocating for fair salaries, filing grievances, and pushing for better working conditions. As of 2022, everyone covered by the agreement contributes dues because everyone benefits from that work (with an exception for staff hired before the 2022 MoA because dues were not included in employment contracts at the time and we can’t change that unilaterally).

Membership is a governance role under Ontario’s not-for-profit law. Being a member means you choose to take part in elections, vote at meetings, and help shape the direction of the UWSA. It’s a voluntary way to participate in the leadership of your association.

FAUW has the same arrangement: new hires pay dues and get services, but joining as a member is a separate step.

By keeping dues and membership distinct, we stay compliant with the law, maintain a transparent governance structure, and work toward having every staff member who benefits from representation help sustain the Association—while still giving you the choice to participate more deeply in the UWSA’s leadership if you want to.

How is it fair that not everyone pays dues, if legal precedent says everyone who benefits should pay dues?

We agree—when everyone benefits, it feels fair for everyone to contribute.

Some long‑serving staff were hired before dues were mandatory, and dues were not part of their original employment terms. That places legal limits on what can be required today, and is something we have worked through carefully with the University; they recognize that the UWSA represents a large group of staff whom we cannot compel to pay dues. We continue to look for responsible, lawful ways to address this imbalance.

In the meantime, every membership matters. Broad participation strengthens the UWSA’s ability to represent staff and advocate for better working conditions at UW. If you’re eligible, choosing to pay dues is a concrete way to support fairness for all staff.

I don't understand the new category of staff who pay dues but are not members – do staff have to opt in now?

New staff will start as Contributing Members—since they’re paying dues, they will have access to all of our services and receive all of our emails. The only difference for them will be that they’ll need to opt in to become Voting Members, which is really a governance role—membership in the UWSA as a not-for-profit organization. 

The main difference is that only Voting Members have membership rights under the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, such as running and voting in elections. Read more about the membership categories.

All new staff will receive a series of welcome emails—as they do now—and we’ll make it very easy for them to become a Voting Member at any time! While it is an extra step, it’s necessary in order to respect everyone’s legal right to freedom of association.

FAUW has the same arrangement—new faculty pay dues and have access to FAUW’s services and protection, but must join for voting rights, and they have a very high opt-in rate.

Yes! While financial and legal advice we’ve received in the past indicated that UWSA dues were already tax-deductible, we now have definitive agreement from the University, and dues will be reported on T4 slips, as of ratification. We’ll issue a statement of your dues paid up until that point after ratification.

When are negotiations happening for 2026?

Salary negotiations are scheduled to take place immediately following ratification of the MoA. Negotiations will follow the same process outlined in the updated MoA, just on a different timeline. We anticipate reaching a settlement by May 1, as noted in our update on March 12.

How will our negotiators be selected?

Months in advance of negotiations, we will strike a Compensation Strategy Working Group, including UWSA members-at-large selected by the Appointments Committee, to conduct research, consult with members, and prepare a mandate for the negotiating team. Our negotiating team will include one of the UWSA presidents plus members selected by and from the Compensation Strategy Working Group.

Since the new process isn’t formally in place yet, the UWSA operations team and Board struck an interim working group and negotiation team for 2026, and much preparation has occurred in tandem with the MoA revisions. Should ratification not succeed, the Provost's Advisory Committee on Staff Compensation (PACSC) will reconvene with revised committee membership as needed.

When the merit formula was in place, the salary increase process looked like this:

1. Adjust the salary ranges by a certain percentage.
2. Apply the merit formula to that percentage to determine individual salary increases.

The merit formula combined performance ratings with an employee’s position relative to job value—and it resulted in people below job value getting a more significant increase and people above job value getting a smaller increase—often less than the range adjustment.

In the last two years, PACSC instead:

1. Adjusted the salary ranges.
2. Increased salaries by the same amount.

With PACSC, it was ultimately up to the University to determine what increase we get, if any. If we don’t agree to what they’re offering, the provost essentially acts as arbitrator. (This happened in 2023, when PACSC was not able to come to a consensus and it was left to the provost to decide.)

The new system is not drastically different in function:

1. There’s still a range adjustment to move salaries up. This:
   1. lifts the 120% cap so people high in their range can keep increasing,
   2. lifts the floor for new hires, and
   3. lifts the job value target for everyone.
2. There’s a separate across-the-board increase that everyone gets, to move all salaries up.
3. There’s an increase to move staff who are below job value toward job value (see why here).
4. We now also have the opportunity for an additional increase to further grow staff salaries.

We will negotiate for the size of the increases relative to each other.

The important thing is that we now have the ability to truly negotiate what those increases are—and if we don’t feel the university is making a reasonable offer, we can go to mediation and then binding arbitration with a neutral, third-party decision maker, not a university administrator.

Another important difference is how job value functions:

Under the former merit process, job value functioned as a moving—and unpredictable—target. While job value is the midpoint of the salary range and target for newer employees to move toward, performance ratings effectively shifted that target for everyone else. For example, a higher performance rating raised the implied target above job value, while a lower rating decreased it.

This approach served its purpose as a performance-based increase system, but it also created problems. The target employees were moving toward depended heavily on manager discretion, was hard to predict or understand, and often resulted in creases that fell below the range adjustment.

What is different here is that job value is a stable reference point representing competency in the role, rather than a moving target based on performance scores. Across‑the‑board increases, equity adjustments, and any other increases are applied through more transparent mechanisms.

What is in place to ensure that salary increases keep pace with salary band (range) increases, and that salary band increases continue and don't stagnate?

In the proposed Section 8, the compensation envelope (all increases combined) must be at least as much as the salary range adjustment, so that salaries don’t fall behind the ranges. We’ve also stipulated that the Consumer Price Index (i.e. inflation) will be the starting point for negotiating increases, to ensure salaries don’t stagnate.

Does the Flexible Increase Pool involve manager discretion or performance‑based (merit) increases?

There are no current plans to use the Flexible Increase Pool for performance‑based or merit increases, and manager discretion is not built into its use at this time.

The previous merit program was terminated (see the following questions) and any future system that connects compensation to performance would require careful consideration, clear criteria, strong safeguards, and meaningful input from members to ensure fairness, transparency, and consistency.The Flexible Increase Pool is intentionally defined at a high level because its specific use can be negotiated in each salary settlement. Depending on the settlement, the pool could be used for targeted corrections or other agreed‑upon adjustments that are not across‑the‑board or equity increases. If manager input or performance-related elements are ever included, that would need to be explicitly communicated with clear expectations set for everyone, and it would not proceed without appropriate protections for staff.

What about the money staff missed out on without the merit program?

Most staff did not lose wages due to ending the merit program. Staff still received salary increases, they were just the same percentage increase for everyone instead of going through the merit formula and being affected by your performance rating and your position in your salary range. This was intentional, because that merit formula and the performance appraisal system it relied on were not fair to staff. With the exception of staff quite far below job value, most staff have received higher increases recently than what they would have received under the old system even with a high performance appraisal rating.

The people who did lose out were those hired shortly before the merit program ended (from approximately 2022 to early 2024) and were hired well below job value with the promise that the merit program would accelerate their increases toward job value. We have been pushing the university to address this problem for years and negotiations will allow us to do so this year. 

We are taking into account the impacts from discontinuing the merit formula and a number of other factors affecting salary increases in recent years as we prepare for this year’s compensation negotiations.

Why aren’t we getting merit back?

Many universities and other large workplaces are moving away from merit‑based increases because these systems are vulnerable to bias, lack transparency, and often don’t work the way people expect. At UW, the previous merit formula created significant inequities: Staff above job value rarely saw meaningful increases, cost‑of‑living adjustments were difficult to apply fairly, and the process depended on opaque salary pools that varied widely across campus.

Under the revised MoA, eligible staff will receive an across-the-board increase each year, and the equity adjustment will help people progress towards job value—similar to what the merit system was originally designed to do.

The new MoA also gives us space to negotiate additional increases via the “Flexible Increase Pool,” which can be used to address various factors in any given settlement. We can’t re-introduce performance-based rewards this year, as there isn’t a performance review system currently in place. But strong performance deserves recognition, and we’re exploring options that are fair, transparent, and workable for all staff. As the Strategic Talent and Performance Development Framework rolls out, we will negotiate with the University to establish whether and how components of that connect to compensation. We also want to ensure that any performance-based increase mechanisms have broad support among our members.

Were the changes to merit and HR’s new performance management program coordinated, or are they happening independently?

These two processes have been happening separately. In 2021, responding to staff demand, the University and UWSA agreed to improve the performance appraisal system. HR was expected to bring forward a project plan based on an external consultant’s review and employee consultations. In 2024, with no improvements to the system yet in place, we, through the Provost's Advisory Committee on Staff Compensation, agreed not to run the traditional merit program that year, because it was inequitable and inconsistent (this change was later made permanent in 2025). We also agreed, again, that the merit program would be reviewed, and that any future changes should align with HR’s new Strategic Talent and Performance Framework (STPF).

The UWSA has not been involved in developing that framework, and now that it is ready, we can begin the work of determining whether and how it will connect to compensation in the future, because as of now it does not.

We know that some staff prefer performance-based increases, but our responsibility is to protect staff from inequitable or unclear systems. We must ensure that any approach is fair, transparent, and consistent.

Why do staff below job value get an extra increase?

Staff who are paid below job value are behind compared to the expectations of their role and to others doing comparable work, whether because of low starting salary, pay compression, or past inequities that have added up. If everyone receives the same increase, those staff stay behind indefinitely. Prioritizing larger increases for people below job value helps correct past inequities, stabilize retention, and ensure pay better reflects the work being done. Once these salaries are closer to job value, future increases have a more equal and meaningful impact for everyone.

How does the Equity Pool work?

The Equity Pool is used to increase base salaries for staff who are below job value. The formulas outlined in the MoA are designed to address internal salary inequities and help staff progress closer to job value over time, and will be calculated as follows only for staff with base salaries below job value in a given year:

1. Calculate the equity weight: This is the proportion by which the base salary is below job value.
   
   Equity Weight = (April 30 Job Value – April 30 Base Salary) / April 30 Job Value)
2. Calculate an individual equity adjustment: This is the amount that will be added to the April 30 base salary. It will depend on the total funds negotiated for the equity pool each year. This formula calculates a salary adjustment based on the calculated equity weights for all eligible staff.
   
   Individual Equity Adjustment = (Individual Equity Weight / Sum of All Positive Equity Weights) x Total Equity Pool

For example, staff at 85% of job value, regardless of USG, will have the same calculated equity weight and thus will receive the same proportion of that year’s equity pool. Since equity adjustments address how far someone is below job value, staff with the same proportional gap (i.e., same compa-ratio) will receive the same adjustment, even if their USGs and/or salaries differ.

Both the equity adjustment and the across-the-board (ATB) increase will be applied separately (additively) to the April 30 base salaries. Where the ATB increase is uniform for all eligible staff, the equity adjustments will be larger for those further below job value because the goal is to correct the internal salary inequity, not to deliver equal or percentage‑based raises.

Staff whose salary is at or above job value are not eligible for equity adjustments. In this context, “equity” refers specifically to internal salary equity relative to job value, and does not include issues such as gender‑based pay discrimination or other systemic equity concerns, which the University has separate legal obligations to address.

If an issue goes to arbitration, is the decision binding or just a recommendation?

Arbitration is binding on both parties, not just a recommendation. Please see Section 9 for more details.

Who pays for arbitration?

The costs of mediation-arbitration are shared between the University and UWSA. This is why board authorization is required for grievances, so that the decision to move forward is carefully considered and made with staff interests in mind.

The board has considered the cost implications and is developing an internal policy for association-level grievances We are not expecting association-level grievances to be a common occurrence, and we expect to resolve most issues internally. It's the option to now have arbitration that makes this so much more powerful. We've also talked to other staff associations and unions at other institutions who have also noted that they use this option very infrequently as well.

One thing to note is that subsection 9.4.8 only applies to association-level grievances, not individual grievances. Association grievances are only those that have broad implications for staff; the UWSA does not cover the costs of individual or group grievances, though we may provide support throughout the process.

There are no plans to increase dues as a result of this clause or any other changes in the MoA.