September 8, 2008 CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS 2705 - PDF document

Canadian Association of University Teachers Presentation to Legislative Assembly of Ontario Standing Committee on General Government regarding Bill 90 – Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008 September 8, 2008 CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS 2705 Queensview Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2B 8K2 TEL 613-820-2270 FAX 613-820-7244 EMAIL acppu@caut.ca www.caut.ca

Canadian Association of University Teachers Presentation on Bill 90 September 8, 2008 Thank you for the invitation to appear before you this afternoon. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) represents more than 65,000 academic staff at 121 universities and colleges across Canada – including at virtually all universities and colleges in Ontario. On many of our campuses, we represent academic staff and in both full and part-time positions. We are particularly pleased to be here to speak to you about Bill 90. As you know Bill 90 extends the right of collective bargaining to part-time employees at Ontario colleges. This move is long overdue, and we commend the Government of Ontario for fulfilling this promise to part-time workers at Ontario colleges. Unfortunately in its current form, Bill 90 has several critical shortcomings that need to be remedied and can readily be remedied. We will address three of these shortcomings and offer suggestions that will make Bill 90 stronger. First, and most substantively, Bill 90 creates two bargaining units for academic staff (full-time and part-time) and two bargaining units (full-time and part-time) for support staff. This provision makes little sense given that part-time academic and support staff do the same work in the same workplace as their currently unionized full-time colleagues. Further, the so-called “full-time” academic unit includes both full-time and partial-load faculty and the “part-time” unit, as envisioned in the Bill, would include part-time faculty as well as full-time faculty who do not teach full-time for more than 12 months in 24.) In short, the situation is more complex than simply full-time vs. part-time, and, in any case, the relationship between full and part-time workers at Ontario colleges easily meets the “community of interest” standard set by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in determining whether workers ought to be in the same bargaining unit. We would like to draw your attention to an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision in 1998 with respect to a similar issue at the University of Western Ontario. In that case, the OLRB was asked to arbitrate a dispute in which the University was contesting the right of part-time faculty to be part of the same bargaining unit as full-time faculty. The Board set the question out very clearly by asking: Does the unit which the union seeks to represent encompass a group with a sufficiently coherent “community of interest” that they can bargain together on a viable basis without at the same time causing serious labour relations problems for the employer? The Board answered that question in the affirmative by arguing as follows: Although the job expectations of the full- time faculty and those of the faculty with limited duties are different, and that the faculty with limited duties are not required or expected to do research and administrative work, they have in 1

Canadian Association of University Teachers Presentation on Bill 90 September 8, 2008 common an interest in academic work and scholarship and, to all intents and purposes, together they are distinctive from other categories of university employees in that they are responsible for the academic program which must be completed by the students. There is more that binds the two categories of faculty than separate them. The OLRB ruled that there should be a single bargaining unit for part-time and full-time academic staff. Similar positions have been taken by other labour relations boards across Canada. In 2003, for example, when the Acadia University Faculty Association applied to merge its part-time faculty into the full-time bargaining unit, the Board of Governors of the University objected. After hearing evidence, the Nova Scotia Labour Relations Board noted: From the student perspective, the professorate assigns readings, gives lectures, conducts evaluation of performance in a variety of ways and provides feedback in different forms including final grades. While part-time faculty do not have formal research responsibilities, their teaching of credit courses gives them more in common with full-time faculty than have the librarians and instructors who are in the 'full-time' unit. The Nova Scotia Board went on to say: The Board is convinced that the part-time instructors at Acadia University do share a community of interests with the academic staff of full-time professors, librarians and instructors/demonstrators. As an initial observation, it is significant to note that most bargaining units in unionized work settings encompass a variety of job classifications; indeed, a bargaining unit of simple classification in a complex work place is highly unusual. [The existing bargaining unit]… are academic staff involved in the core teaching and research mission of the university in varying roles. Adding a classification of part-time teaching staff to this general academic bargaining unit would, generally, seem far from anomalous. The Nova Scotia Board ruled that there should be a single bargaining unit for part-time and full-time academic staff. Decisions such as these by provincial labour boards, including the Ontario Labour Relations Board, are directly relevant to the issue of whether or not there should be one or two bargaining units each for academic and for support staff at Ontario colleges. The reasoning set out above is directly applicable because part-time and full-time academic staff at Ontario colleges are both employed in the core activity of delivering the “academic program which must be completed by students.” In every relevant way, the day to day reality of the work carried out by full and part-time academic staff at Ontario colleges constitutes a “coherent community of interest.” 2

Canadian Association of University Teachers Presentation on Bill 90 September 8, 2008 In addition, based on our national experience with combined bargaining units, we can assure you that there is no basis to fear that bargaining together as one unit would cause serious labour relations problems for employers. Quite the contrary, it makes for more efficient and orderly labour relations for both parties. Bill 90 should set out one bargaining each for all facul ties and one for all support staff. Our second concern with Bill 90, as currently written, is that it prevents either party from requesting first contract arbitration. The principle of first contract arbitration has long been enshrined in the Ontario Labour Relations Act . First contract arbitration has been a very useful tool in arriving at first contracts that are fair to both unionized workers and employers. The Government has set forth no compelling rationale for the decision to exclude first contract arbitration from the Bill, and we call on the Committee to reconsider this provision. Our final concern with Bill 90 as currently written is that a grievance settlement at one institution would not automatically apply at all institutions. The Bill defines “employer” as an individual college although the collective agreement is signed by an employers’ organization, and the agreement is binding on all “employers.” The Bill fails to include the provision from the Ontario Labour Relations Act that an arbitrator’s ruling on a grievance against one employer under an agreement signed by an employers’ organization is binding on all employers covered by the agreement. The absence of this provision in Bill 90 means that the union may have to litigate the same grievance 24 times. This is clearly a counter-productive model in the context of the Ontario college system. Why not spare the union and the taxpayers of Ontario the time and expense of needless arbitration hearings when the matter can easily be resolved by adding the relevant provision from the OLRA. In conclusion, we again want to note the historic nature of Bill 90 and our appreciation that the Government of Ontario in righting a long standing wrong by extending collective bargaining rights to part-time staff at Ontario colleges. However, as we hope we have made clear, there are several substantive problems with the Bill as currently written. We have addressed three of them. We hope our comments today will be helpful in making amendments to Bill 90 so that it will be a piece of legislation that works well for faculty, students, the colleges and all those who have a stake in high quality public education in Ontario. Thank you, and we look forward to your questions. Respectfully Submitted, James L. Turk Executive Director 3