Most Canadian universities are unionized, but some are not IN BC: UBC is unionized, with salary arbitration SFU is not unionized, but currently considering it UNBC is not unionized, but currently considering it Royal Roads is unionized All other smaller institutions are unionized: Vancouver Island University for example

Most Canadian universities are unionized, but some are not Faculty Associations in Alberta are not unionized because they are prohibited from unionizing by provincial legislation - binding arbitration (“replicative”) covers all matters, salary and non-salary Most other major Canadian institutions are unionized: U. Saskatchewan, U. Manitoba, U. Winnipeg, U. Windsor, Western, Queen’s, York, Trent, Carleton, Ottawa, Wilfrid Laurier, U. Montreal, Dalhousie, U. New Brunswick, Memorial, Concordia A few are not unionized: Toronto, McMaster (except librarians, who are unionized), Waterloo, McGill (where the faculty association has no bargaining rights).

Most non-union agreements are “minimalist” but some are comprehensive COMPREHENSIVE: Alberta, Uvic Framework Agreement MINIMALIST: McMaster, Waterloo, Toronto In between: SFU No agreement at all: McGill “Minimalist” agreements usually point to university policies (over which the Association may or may not have some “say”), but specify salary negotiating procedures.

 Basically, these agreements are good only as

long as the employer honours them  Employer can unilaterally declare at any time, “it’s off”; legal recourse not clear. 

of course, the threat that faculty would unionize might act as one force compelling employers to honour these agreements

 Legal status of mandatory dues check-off is

ambiguous: could be challenged by members wanting to be “free riders”.

Sometimes, this takes the form of a

“minimalist” agreement with all other matters left to administration-dictated university policies 

Not the case with the Framework Agreement though, but is the case at institutions such as McMaster, Waterloo, Toronto.

 Often, the salary arbitration provision is far

more restrictive than standard salary arbitration provisions 

UVic is a classic example of this, with adjudication criteria heavily weighted towards the employer’s position.

 Sometimes, entire areas of negotiation are

explicitly excluded

 At UVIC, the Association is explicitly excluded from

negotiating anything related to pensions

 Almost always, tenure, promotion and renewal processes cannot be grieved or appealed through an arbitration process and the Association has no “standing” (right to take part in processes).  The “in house” appeal processes involve varying

degrees of fairness/unfairness.  UVic’s is one of the worst: a President can (and has (!) in the recent past) denied tenure even though the University Review Committee found that there were procedural defects sufficient to have affected the case and recommended the case be re-heard. Even at SFU, a non-union institution, this sort of thing would be sent to a third party for review.

 In BC, access to Labour legislation provisions calling

for fair treatment (by the employer) on matters not directly addressed in the agreement  In BC, any Human Rights Code problem can be dealt with through the arbitration and grievance provisions in the agreement, even if the agreement doesn’t specifically mention the issue (discrimination, accommodation issues, etc.). 

In non-union agreement, more drawn-out process of complaint to Human Rights Tribunal with limited authority on matters such as job status

 Right to representation  At Uvic, employer has denied Association the right to be

present/ represent Members  E.g., (hypothetical): a janitor accuses a faculty member of sexual harassment, goes to his union… university holds meetings without the member being allowed to be present, makes a determination, asks faculty member to sign an agreement to stay away from office after 2pm. University says “this is not discipline” but threatens to discipline if member does not sign. If unionized, Faculty member and Faculty Association have “status” at any hearing and would be party to any agreement.

 Canadian faculty association unions are all independent and not part of a larger union

 Exception: some sessional-only unions  A unionized association could join CUPE if

it wanted to, but work-related issues are sufficiently different that it makes no sense to do so

At many institutions (Queen’s, Western),

sessionals are part of the faculty union  Depends on historical patterns though  At UVic, sessionals are separately unionized (CUPE 4163) and would therefore not be part of a Faculty Association union if UVic unionized

 UVic does not currently have arbitration if

the negotiating process fails on non-salary matters  Arbitrators do not ask the question “what is fair?” They rule either on the basis of “replication” or on the basis of prior criteria the parties have agreed to.  Arbitration is good, generally, for the party that seeks to preserve the status quo, and bad for the party that seeks change.

Criterion #1:

ability to pay

- Unusual: most arbitration provisions in agreements do not include ability to pay;

arbitrator considers this only in cases of dire financial distress (far from the case at Uvic) - Expensive to argue: Faced with university financial “experts” (typically with

accounting credentials), Faculty Associations must typically go to expensive outside consultants This was done at UBC as well as at Uvic - It may be possible to demonstrate that the university has shown a consistent pattern

of budget surpluses over years if not decades (as has been the case at UVic), but administrations which have had such surpluses have tended to shunt the money into “special projects” and can thus argue to an arbitrator, “yes, but it’s not as if the money is there and hasn’t been spent”. At UVic, $47 million in operating budget money has been shoveled into the CARSA project, and more may be required in the near future if the projected $15 million donation target is not met (moreover, not all CARSA donations represent “new money” which wouldn’t have otherwise come into the university)

Criterion #2:

salaries at other universities

- Since UVic is, as of July 1, 2013, in last place among 21 comparator

institutions, this criterion would appear to be easy to argue and it is – up to a point!

- Limitations: - “other universities” doesn’t specify which other universities. At UBC, the language is “other Canadian universities,” enabling the Faculty Association to argue for comparisons against the University of Toronto as a comparable institution - At Uvic, the arbitrator in the 2012-2014 salary settlement chose to emphasize the

comparison with other comparable B.C. universities, namely SFU. Although ahead of UVic, SFU is close to the bottom on the comparator institution list - “salaries” is not the same as “salaries and benefits”. The UBC language includes

“benefits” while the UVic language does not. Implications: Faculty Association cannot argue “we are behind on benefits” because this is not a relevant criterion. UVic is near or at the bottom with respect to medical benefits, dental benefits, presence/absence of a tuition waiver.

Criterion #3:

inflation levels

- In periods of high inflation, this criterion can work to the benefit of the Faculty

Association position. In period of low inflation but expanding GDP or expanding general wages, it works against the Faculty Association. Criterion #4 the level of settlement for other employee groups within the university - This is a “bonus clause” for the administration negotiating team: give other employee

groups a poor settlement and you can argue, “see, we have to treat you poorly because we treated other employees poorly”.

- The UBC arbitration language is “changes in average salaries and wages”. Since

wage increases in the private sector in BC have been above 2% recently, this criterion worked in the favour of the Faculty Association

Criterion #5: the university’s need to attract and retain qualified faculty members and librarians - To make an argument here, one needs to demonstrate (a) people are

declining job offers at UVic and (b) people are leaving UVic.

- In the 2012-2014 salary arbitration, the administration claimed “no problem”. To be

sure, there was a bit of “fudging” with the numbers (“% of 1st offer candidates saying yes and coming to UVic” was buoyed up by the fact that some offers were for 3-year limited term spousal appointments – of course the 1st choice candidate will come to UVic). No one has or can easily get “didn’t even think of applying to UVic” numbers.

- The word qualified was specifically mentioned by the arbitrator in the 2012-2014

salary settlement. The administration doesn’t even need to demonstrate that it is getting and retaining quality or excellent faculty – only that those people it gets or replaces are “qualified”. This is a very low bar. At UBC, the language is easier to argue: “The need for the university to maintain academic quality”.

- Staff morale doesn’t matter in this criterion (though it would in the UBC version)

 faculty strikes are rare

 usually, they are over some issue other than

money

 majority of unionized faculty associations in

Canada has never gone on strike  when they occur, faculty strikes usually:  

are short in duration (3-8 days) include agreements so that lab work can proceed

 often serve as a “wake up call” to the institution,

with at least a temporary improvement in faculty relations afterwards

 immediate major improvements in salary position of UVic unlikely 

in the long run, unionization has generally shown to have been a positive factor in achieving good salary settlements across Canada, but the BC government “Employers’ Council” regime makes this challenging for union and non-union associations alike.

 Unionization is a collective expression of faculty interest in the university, its employment relationship with faculty and librarians, and, more generally, university governance. The process has already led to higher levels of “civic engagement” than have been experienced at UVic in decades

 More Member interest in a faculty

association which “matters”.  More administration attentiveness to what goes on in the Association as opposed to the treatment of the Association as peripheral or not largely relevant.

 Expansion of appeal rights

(“grievance and arbitration”) on important matters including but not limited to new course assignment regimes, tenure process problems,etc.

I endorse the certification campaign and intend to vote “yes”. I do not see certification as a panacea and worry that expectations as to what can be achieved might be overly high, but there is no doubt in my mind that a certified Faculty Association will be in a better position to defend and extend faculty and librarian rights in the difficult times ahead than a non-certified Association. Doug Baer December 11, 2013