Arguments against certification
Several arguments can be made against certification and the Committee discussed these at length.
Resources: As noted above, Certification involves a much more complex process and imposes greater responsibilities on UGFA. This would necessitate greater resources, both fiscal and human. The current mil rate is 7.5, which is the average for non-certified Associations. The average mil rate for certified Associations in Ontario is 8.96 The mil rate would presumably need to be raised if UGFA were to be certified. There would also be an increased workload for Councillors and Executive members.
Collegiality: Certification might also lead to a less flexible administrative structure. The opportunity to resolve individual grievances by swift, informal, mutually agreed steps might be lost. Certification could also lead to some loss of collegiality with the Administration and between some UGFA members, particularly in the short term. However, experience at other campuses shows that certification need not lead to loss of collegiality.
A non-unionized Association always has the implied threat of Certification: The threat alone is ammunition for the bargaining process. Once executed, this threat vanishes; it is replaced by the threat of strike. Although a strike/ lockout represents a failure of the bargaining process and certainly causes injury to both workers and management, there can be no guarantee that strikes will not occur. Indeed, strikes by Faculty Associations have taken place, from time to time, in Ontario.
Negotiation: In the event of Certification, all existing agreements between Faculty and the University expire, and all aspects of the relationship must be re-negotiated. This includes even time-honoured aspects of the Special Plan. In principle, a risk exists that fundamental rights of Faculty (say, guarantees of Academic Freedom, eligibility for tenure, sabbaticals, 12-month employment contracts, and so on) could have to be surrendered in a negotiation. In practice, however, the negotiating “room” (for both the Association and the University) is severely constrained by competitive forces - terms and conditions would have to be consistent with Ontario norms.
The present JCC and JFPC consultative processes would expire upon Certification. However, replacement consultation processes could be negotiated, and it would very likely be in the interest of both sides to do so.
It is beyond the scope of this committee to draw any conclusions on the information gathered and presented above. Therefore it is for UGFA Executive to assess the current relationship of the Faculty Association with the Administration and, in the light of this report, to decide whether or not to maintain the status quo or launch a certification drive.