MUNASA Special Bulletin - July 31, 2025

Layoffs and the Annual Compensation Review

Layoffs

The recent wave of terminations that occurred in April has left a deep and lasting impact on our community.  The manner in which these decisions were implemented reflected a disconcerting level of detachment that failed to acknowledge the effect this would have on the personal and professional lives of these individuals.

MUNASA witnessed a cold, scripted process where employees were called into meetings and informed—without prior notice—that their positions had been abolished, effective immediately.  They lost access to their McGill email and were accompanied to retrieve their personal belongings.

In total, 23 employees were laid off in April alone.  However, this number does not reflect those who were let go before or after this collective layoff.  It also excludes the many individuals whose contracts will not be renewed, as well as those whose positions were abolished, leaving them in a state of uncertainty and distress about their future.

While the University fulfilled its legal obligation by providing eight weeks of compensation in lieu of notice, this statutory entitlement was bundled in with a severance package in most instances. Employees with less than two years of service received no severance beyond the legal minimum.  Others were presented with unusually odd severance calculations (e.g., 31.42 weeks), determined by a rigid and undisclosed formula.  These impersonal calculations did not represent the employees’ years of dedication and service to the University.

Although the majority of layoffs occurred in April, the atmosphere remains one of heightened anxiety and uncertainty.  During the May 16, 2025 Town Hall, it was stated that “unfortunately, more cuts are inevitable, possibly including layoffs”.  This comes as no surprise since McGill University is facing significant deficits over the next several years.  As we mentioned in our March 2025 Bulletin, it makes us question the structure of senior administration and how it is heavily weighted with a range of Associate Provosts, Vice-Presidents, Associate Vice-Presidents, Associate Deans, and more.  According to the information provided by the University to the Minister of Higher Education, the salaries of the senior administration are reported (p.51).  In 2023–2024, the base salaries ranged from $159,366 to $572,974, which does not include benefits.

Meanwhile, Horizon McGill has been launched and is being framed as a “sustainable path forward”.  Its mission is to “streamline our processes, explore new ways of optimizing academic program delivery, and benchmark our administrative and support processes against similar research-intensive universities”.  Yet, according to a recent Montreal Gazette article, it says “In a recent call for tender seeking a branding agency, McGill says it wants to “reposition how McGill is perceived by key audiences (students, government, donors, public) over a multi-year period.” The new “positioning/messaging must be as effective in French as it is in English” and should “illustrate how we are a true bridge between generations, between research and community, between Quebec and the world.” The estimated cost of the contract spans a wide range, from $707,000 to $6.7 million. McGill expects to select an agency in September and launch a multi-year branding campaign one year later”.  While the need to invest in their brand may be required, the cost of hiring an agency for a brand campaign certainly seems like a giant step backward in terms of deficit reduction.  Should we not be looking at the resources we have within McGill?

Annual Compensation Review

At the same time, the Annual Compensation Review (ACR) has become a source of profound frustration and demoralization for many.  Numerous members have contacted MUNASA expressing their outrage over the inequitable application of this process.

Supervisors attempting to recognize the outstanding contributions of their team members— by recommending ratings such as “Exceeds Expectations” or “Significantly Exceeds Expectations”—have been overruled by “The Dean or Executive, with Human Resources”, individuals who may have limited or no firsthand knowledge of the employee’s actual performance or contributions.

While many employees rightfully merit higher ratings, the University imposes a cap on how many can receive them.  As a result, “Consistently Meets Expectations” is increasingly being positioned as the new norm, even for staff who consistently go above and beyond under challenging circumstances.  Despite years of dedicated service, institutional knowledge and excellent performance, many saw smaller increases.  Adding to this concern, the University has removed the ‘cost of living increase’ from the annual compensation review while academics still benefit from the “across-the-board increase of 1.00% applied to base annual academic salary”.  In the current economic climate are managers and academics not equally affected by the rising cost of living?  Was the removal of the cost-of-living increase intended to give the University greater leeway in selectively rewarding individuals?

This process has not only demoralized managers but has also significantly undermined trust in the fairness and transparency of the ACR system.  As a result, an increasing number of members are coming forward to formally dispute their assigned performance rating and corresponding salary increase.

In these challenging times, MUNASA acknowledges and deeply appreciates the resilience, dedication, and professionalism of our members.  We remain steadfast in our commitment to support you.  If you need any assistance or wish to share your experience, please reach out to us—we’re here for you.

In solidarity,

MUNASA Executive